top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 134 points 1 year ago (53 children)

Experienced software developer, here. "AI" is useful to me in some contexts. Specifically when I want to scaffold out a completely new application (so I'm not worried about clobbering existing code) and I don't want to do it by hand, it saves me time.

And... that's about it. It sucks at code review, and will break shit in your repo if you let it.

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Same. I also like it for basic research and helping with syntax for obscure SQL queries, but coding hasn't worked very well. One of my less technical coworkers tried to vibe code something and it didn't work well. Maybe it would do okay on something routine, but generally speaking it would probably be better to use a library for that anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I actively hate the term "vibe coding." The fact is, while using an LLM for certain tasks is helpful, trying to build out an entire, production-ready application just by prompts is a huge waste of time and is guaranteed to produce garbage code.

    At some point, people like your coworker are going to have to look at the code and work on it, and if they don't know what they're doing, they'll fail.

    I commend them for giving it a shot, but I also commend them for recognizing it wasn't working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think the term pretty accurately describes what is going on: they don't know how to code, but they do know what correct output for a given input looks like, so they iterate with the LLM until they get what they want. The coding here is based on vibes (does the output feel correct?) instead of logic.

    I don't think there's any problem with the term, the problem is with what's going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I have limited AI experience, but so far that's what it means to me as well: helpful in very limited circumstances.

    Mostly, I find it useful for "speaking new languages" - if I try to use AI to "help" with the stuff I have been doing daily for the past 20 years? Yeah, it's just slowing me down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I like the saying that LLMs are “good” at stuff you don’t know. That’s about it.

    When you know the subject it stops being much useful because you’ll already know the very obvious stuff that LLM could help you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I...think that's their point. The only reason it seems good is because you're bad and can't spot that is bad, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    To be fair, when you're in Gambukistan and you don't even know what languages are spoken, a smart phone can bail you out and get you communicating basic needs much faster and better than waving your hands and speaking English LOUDLY AND S L O W L Y . A good human translator, you can trust, should be better - depending on their grasp of English, but there's another point... who do you choose to pick your hotel for you? Google, or a local kid who spotted you from across the street and ran over to "help you out"? That's a tossup, both are out to make a profit out of you, but which one is likely to hurt you more?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    FreedomAdvocate is right, IMO the best use case of ai is things you have an understanding of, but need some assistance. You need to understand enough to catch atleast impactful errors by the llm

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Not a developer per se (mostly virtualization, architecture, and hardware) but AI can get me to 80-90% of a script in no time. The last 10% takes a while but that was going to take a while regardless. So the time savings on that first 90% is awesome. Although it does send me down a really bad path at times. Being experienced enough to know that is very helpful in that I just start over.

    In my opinion AI shouldn’t replace coders but it can definitely enhance them if used properly. It’s a tool like everything. I can put a screw in with a hammer but I probably shouldn’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Like I said, I do find it useful at times. But not only shouldn't it replace coders, it fundamentally can't. At least, not without a fundamental rearchitecturing of how they work.

    The reason it goes down a "really bad path" is that it's basically glorified autocomplete. It doesn't know anything.

    On top of that, spoken and written language are very imprecise, and there's no way for an LLM to derive what you really wanted from context clues such as your tone of voice.

    Take the phrase "fruit flies like a banana." Am I saying that a piece of fruit might fly in a manner akin to how another piece of fruit, a banana, flies if thrown? Or am I saying that the insect called the fruit fly might like to consume a banana?

    It's a humorous line, but my point is serious: We unintentionally speak in ambiguous ways like that all the time. And while we've got brains that can interpret unspoken signals to parse intended meaning from a word or phrase, LLMs don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    That's still not actually knowing anything. It's just temporarily adding more context to its model.

    And it's always very temporary. I have a yarn project I'm working on right now, and I used Copilot in VS Code in agent mode to scaffold it as an experiment. One of the refinements I included in the prompt file to build it is reminders throughout for things it wouldn't need reminding of if it actually "knew" the repo.

    • I had to constantly remind it that it's a yarn project, otherwise it would inevitably start trying to use NPM as it progressed through the prompt.
    • For some reason, when it's in agent mode and it makes a mistake, it wants to delete files it has fucked up, which always requires human intervention, so I peppered the prompt with reminders not to do that, but to blank the file out and start over in it.
    • The frontend of the project uses TailwindCSS. It could not remember not to keep trying to downgrade its configuration to an earlier version instead of using the current one, so I wrote the entire configuration for it by hand and inserted it into the prompt file. If I let it try to build the configuration itself, it would inevitably fuck it up and then say something completely false, like, "The version of TailwindCSS we're using is still in beta, let me try downgrading to the previous version."

    I'm not saying it wasn't helpful. It probably cut 20% off the time it would have taken me to scaffold out the app myself, which is significant. But it certainly couldn't keep track of the context provided by the repo, even though it was creating that context itself.

    Working with Copilot is like working with a very talented and fast junior developer whose methamphetamine addiction has been getting the better of it lately, and who has early onset dementia or a brain injury that destroyed their short-term memory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    From the article: "Even after completing the tasks with AI, the developers believed that they had decreased task times by 20%. But the study found that using AI did the opposite: it increased task completion time by 19%."

    I'm not saying you didn't save time, but it's remarkable that the research shows that this perception can be false.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    On that last note, important thing they left out here being general news reporting tech stuff is that this was specifically bug fixing tasks. It can typically only provide the broadest of advice on that, and it’s largely incapable of tackling problems holistically when you often need to be thinking big picture while tackling a bug.

    Interesting that the AI devs thought they were being quicker though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Sometimes I get an LLM to review a patch series before I send it as a quick once over. I would estimate about 50% of the suggestions are useful and about 10% are based on "misunderstanding". Last week it was suggesting a spelling fix I'd already made because it didn't understand the - in the diff meant I'd changed the line already.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    Exactly what you would expect from a junior engineer.

    Let them run unsupervised and you have a mess to clean up. Guide them with context and you’ve got a second set of capable hands.

    Something something craftsmen don’t blame their tools

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [+] 62 points 1 year ago (25 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Yeah but a Claude/Cursor/whatever subscription costs $20/month and a junior engineer costs real money. Are the tools 400 times less useful than a junior engineer? I’m not so sure…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This line of thought is short sighted. Your senior engineers will eventually retire or leave the company. If everyone replaces junior engineers with ai, then there will be nobody with the experience to fill those empty seats. Then you end up with no junior engineers and no senior engineers, so who is wrangling the ai?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This isn’t black and white. There will always be some junior hires. No one is saying replace ALL of them. But hiring 1 junior engineer instead of 3? Maybe…and that’s already happening to some degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And when the current senior programmers retire the field of juniors that are coming to replace them will be much smaller.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Not that I agree, but if you believe that the LLMs will continuously improve, then in 5-10 years you may only need 1/3rd the seniors, to oversee and prompt. Again, that's what these CEOs are relying on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Even at $100/month you’re comparing to a > $10k/month junior. 1% of the cost for certainly > 1% functionality of a junior.

    You can see why companies are tripping over themselves to push this new modality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I was just ballparking the salary. Say it’s only 100x. Does the argument change? It’s a lot more money to pay for a real person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    AI tools are actually improving at a rate faster than most junior engineers I have worked with, and about 30% of junior engineers I have worked with never really "graduated" to a level that I would trust them to do anything independently, even after 5 years in the job. Those engineers "find their niche" doing something other than engineering with their engineering job titles, and that's great, but don't ever trust them to build you a bridge or whatever it is they seem to have been hired to do.

    Now, as for AI, it's currently as good or "better" than about 40% of brand-new fresh from the BS program software engineers I have worked with. A year ago that number probably would have been 20%. So far it's improving relatively quickly. The question is: will it plateau, or will it improve exponentially?

    Many things in tech seem to have an exponential improvement phase, followed by a plateau. CPU clock speed is a good example of that. Storage density/cost is one that doesn't seem to have hit a plateau yet. Software quality/power is much harder to gauge, but it definitely is still growing more powerful / capable even as it struggles with bloat and vulnerabilities.

    The question I have is: will AI continue to write "human compatible" software, or is it going to start writing code that only AI understands, but people rely on anyway? After all, the code that humans write is incomprehensible to 90%+ of the humans that use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I’m seeing exactly the opposite. It used to be the junior engineers understood they had a lot to learn. However with AI they confidently try entirely wrong changes. They don’t understand how to tell when the ai goes down the wrong path, don’t know how to fix it, and it takes me longer to fix.

    So far ai overall creates more mess faster.

    Don’t get me wrong, it can be a useful tool you have to think of it like autocomplete or internet search. Just like those tools it provides results but the human needs judgement and needs to figure out how to apply the appropriate results.

    My company wants metrics on how much time we’re saving with ai, but

    • I have to spend more time helping the junior guys out of the holes dug by ai, making it net negative
    • it’s just another tool. There’s not really a defined task or set time. If you had to answer how much time autocomplete saved you, could you provide any sort of meaningful answer?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I've always had problems with junior engineers (self included) going down bad paths, since before there was Google search - let alone AI.

    So far ai overall creates more mess faster.

    Maybe it is moving faster, maybe they do bother the senior engineers less often than they used to, but for throw-away proof of concept and similar stuff, the juniors+AI are getting better than the juniors without senior support used to be... Is that a good direction? No. When the seniors are over-tasked with "Priority 1" deadlines (nothing new) does this mean the juniors can get a little further on their own and some of them learn from their own mistakes? I think so.

    Where I started, it was actually the case that the PhD senior engineers needed help from me fresh out of school - maybe that was a rare circumstance, but the shop was trying to use cutting edge stuff that I knew more about than the seniors. Basically, everything in 1991 was cutting edge and it made the difference between getting something that worked or having nothing if you didn't use it. My mentor was expert in another field, so we were complimentary that way.

    My company (now) wants metrics on a lot of things, but they also understand how meaningless those metrics can be.

    I have to spend more time helping the junior guys out of the holes dug by ai, making it net negative

    https://clip.cafe/monsters-inc-2001/all-right-mr-bile-it/

    Shame. There was a time that people dug out of their own messes, I think you learn more, faster that way. Still, I agree - since 2005 I have spend a lot of time taking piles of Matlab, Fortran, Python that have been developed over years to reach critical mass - add anything else to them and they'll go BOOM - and translating those into commercially salable / maintainable / extensible Qt/C++ apps, and I don't think I ever had one "mentee" through that process who was learning how to follow in my footsteps, the organizations were always just interested in having one thing they could sell, not really a team that could build more like it in the future.

    it’s just another tool.

    Yep.

    If you had to answer how much time autocomplete saved you, could you provide any sort of meaningful answer?

    Speaking of meaningless metrics, how many people ask you for Lines Of Code counts, even today?___

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Shame. There was a time that people dug out of their own messes, I think you learn more, faster

    Yes, that’s how we became senior guys. But when you have deadlines that you’re both on the hook for and they’re just floundering, you can only give them so much opportunity. I’ve had too many arguments with management about letting them merge and I’m not letting that ruin my code base

    Speaking of meaningless metrics, how many people ask you for Lines Of Code counts, even today?

    We have a new VP collecting metrics on everyone, including lines of code, number of merge requests, times per day using ai, days per week in the office vs at home

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I’ve had too many arguments with management about letting them merge and I’m not letting that ruin my code base

    I guess I'm lucky, before here I always had 100% control of the code I was responsible for. Here (last 12 years) we have a big team, but nobody merges to master/main without a review and screwups in the section of the repository I am primarily responsible for have been rare.

    We have a new VP collecting metrics on everyone, including lines of code, number of merge requests, times per day using ai, days per week in the office vs at home

    I have been getting actively recruited - six figures+ - for multiple openings right here in town (not a huge market here, either...) this may be the time...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Interesting idea… we actually have a plan to go public in a couple years and I’m holding a few options, but the economy is hitting us like everyone else. I’m no longer optimistic we can reach the numbers for those options to activate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Always keep an open mind. I stuck around in my first job until the sad and pathetic end for everyone, and when I finally did start looking the economy was worse than it had been when the writing was first on the wall.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Is “way less useful” something you can cite with a source, or is that just feelings?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The difference being junior engineers eventually grow up into senior engineers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Does every junior eventually achieve becoming a senior?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, but that's the only way you get senior engineers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Exactly what you would expect from a junior engineer.

    Except junior engineers become seniors. If you don't understand this ... are you HR?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Writing code is the easiest part of my job. Why are you taking that away?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    For some of us that’s more useful. I’m currently playing a DevSecOps role and one of the defining characteristics is I need to know all the tools. On Friday, I was writing some Java modules, then some groovy glue, then spent the after writing a Python utility. While im reasonably good about jumping among languages and tools, those context switches are expensive. I definitely want ai help with that.

    That being said, ai is just a step up from search or autocomplete, it’s not magical. I’ve had the most luck with it generating unit tests since they tend to be simple and repetitive (also a major place for the juniors to screw up: ai doesn’t know whether the slop it’s pumping out is useful. You do need to guide it and understand it, and you really need to cull the dreck)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    I think about how much the planet is heating up because people like me are a little too lazy to be competent. I am glad my nieces and nephews get to pay our price we are raising every day on their behalf, to improve their world supposedly with our extra productivity, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Code reviews take up a lot of time, and if I know a lot of code in a review is AI generated I feel like I'm obliged to go through it with greater rigour, making it take up more time. LLM code is unaware of fundamental things such as quirks due to tech debt and existing conventions. It's not great.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Code reviews seem like a good opportunity for an LLM. It seems like they would be good at it. I’ve actually spent the last half hour googling for tools.

    I’ve spent literally a month in reviews for this junior guy on one stupid feature, and so much of it has been so basic. It’s a combination of him committing ai slop without understanding or vetting it, and being too junior to consider maintainability or usability. It would have saved so much of my time if ai could have done some of those review cycles without me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This has been solved for over a decade. Include a linter and static analysis stage in the build pipeline. No code review until the checkbox goes green (or the developer has a specific argument for why a particular finding is a false positive)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not really.

    Linter in the build pipeline is generally not useful because most people won’t give results time or priority. You usually can’t fail the build for lint issues so all it does is fill logs. I usually configure a linter and prettifier in a precommit hook, to shift that left. People are more willing to fix their code in small pieces as they try to commit.

    But this is also why SonarQube is a key tool. The scanners are lint-like, and you can even import some lint output. But the important part is it tries to prioritize them, score them, and enforce a quality gate based on them. I usually can’t fail a build for lint errors but SonarQube can if there are too many or too priority, or if they are security related.

    But this is not the same as a code review. If an ai can use the code base as context, it should be able to add checks for consistency and maintainability similar to the rest of the code. For example I had a junior developer blindly follow the AI to use a different mocking framework than the rest of the code, for no reason other than it may have been more common in the training data. A code review ai should be able to notice that. Maybe this is too advanced for current ai, but the same guy blindly followed ai to add classes that already existed. They were just different enough that SonarQube didn’t flag is as duplicate code but ai ought to be able to summarize functionality and realize they were the same. Or I wonder if ai could do code organization? Junior guys spew classes and methods everywhere without any effort in organizing like with like, so someone can maintain it all. Or how about style? I hope yo never revisit style wars but when you’re modifying code you really need to follow style and naming of what’s already there. Maybe ai code review can pick up on that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, I’ve added AI to my review process. Sure, things take a bit longer, but the end result has been reviewed by me AND compared against a large body of code in the training data.

    It regularly catches stuff I miss or ignore on a first review based on ignoring context that shouldn’t matter (eg, how reliable the person is who wrote the code).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’ve used cursor quite a bit recently in large part because it’s an organization wide push at my employer, so I’ve taken the opportunity to experiment.

    My best analogy is that it’s like micro managing a hyper productive junior developer that somehow already “knows” how to do stuff in most languages and frameworks, but also completely lacks common sense, a concept of good practices, or a big picture view of what’s being accomplished. Which means a ton of course correction. I even had it spit out code attempting to hardcode credentials.

    I can accomplish some things “faster” with it, but mostly in comparison to my professional reality: I rarely have the contiguous chunks of time I’d need to dedicate to properly ingest and do something entirely new to me. I save a significant amount of the onboarding, but lose a bunch of time navigating to a reasonable solution. Critically that navigation is more “interrupt” tolerant, and I get a lot of interrupts.

    That said, this year’s crop of interns at work seem to be thin wrappers on top of LLMs and I worry about the future of critical thinking for society at large.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    no shit. ai will hallucinate shit I’ll hit tab by accident and spend time undoing that or it’ll hijack tab on new lines inconsistently

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Explain this too me AI. Reads back exactly what's on the screen including comments somehow with more words but less information Ok....

    Ok, this is tricky. AI, can you do this refactoring so I don't have to keep track of everything. No... Thats all wrong... Yeah I know it's complicated, that's why I wanted it refactored. No you can't do that... fuck now I can either toss all your changes and do it myself or spend the next 3 hours rewriting it.

    Yeah I struggle to find how anyone finds this garbage useful.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You shouldn't think of "AI" as intelligent and ask it to do something tricky. The boring stuff that's mostly just typing, that's what you get the LLMs to do. "Make a DTO for this table " "Interface for this JSON "

    I just have a bunch of conversations going where I can paste stuff into and it will generate basic code. Then it's just connecting things up, but that's the fun part anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most ides do the boring stuff with templates and code generation for like a decade so that's not so helpful to me either but if it works for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah but I find code generation stuff I've used in the past takes a significant amount of configuration, and will often generate a bunch of code I don't want it to, and not in the way I want it. Many times it's more trouble than it's worth. Having an LLM do it means I don't have to deal with configuring anything and it's generating code for the specific thing I want it to so I can quickly validate it did things right and make any additions I want because it's only generating the thing I'm working on that moment. Also it's the same tool for the various languages I'm using so that adds more convenience.

    Yeah if you have your IDE setup with tools to analyze the datasource and does what you want it to do, that may work better for you. But with the number of DBs I deal with, I'd be spending more time setting up code generation than actually writing code.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I have asked questions, had conversations for company and generated images for role playing with AI.

    I've been happy with it, so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's kind of outside the software development discussion but glad you're enjoying it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As a developer

    • I can jot down a bunch of notes and have ai turn it into a reasonable presentation or documentation or proposal
    • zoom has an ai agent which is pretty good about summarizing a meeting. It usually just needs minor corrections and you can send it out much faster than taking notes
    • for coding I mostly use ai like autocomplete. Sometimes it’s able to autocomplete entire code blocks
    • for something new I might have ai generate a class or something, and use it as a first draft where I then make it work
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I’ve had success with:

    • dumping email threads into it to generate user stories,
    • generating requirements documentation templates so that everyone has to fill out the exact details needed to make the project a success
    • generating quick one-off scripts
    • suggesting a consistent way to refactor a block of code (I’m not crazy enough to let it actually do all the refactoring)
    • summarize the work done for a slide deck and generate appropriate infographics

    Essentially, all the stuff that I’d need to review anyway, but use of AI means that actually generating the content can be done in a consistent manner that I don’t have to think about. I don’t let it create anything, just transform things in blocks that I can quickly review for correctness and appropriateness. Kind of like getting a junior programmer to do something for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This was the case a year or two ago but now if you have an MCP server for docs and your project and goals outlined properly it's pretty good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Not to sound like one of the ads or articles but I vice coded an iOS app in like 6 hours, it's not so complex I don't understand it, it's multifeatured, I learned a LOT and got a useful thing instead of doing a tutorial with sample project. I don't regret having that tool. I do regret the lack of any control and oversight and public ownership of this technology but that's the timeline we're on, let's not pretend it's gay space communism (sigh) but, since AI is probably driving my medical care decisions at the insurance company level, might as well get something to play with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you give it the right task, it’s super helpful. But you can’t ask it to write anything with any real complexity.

    Where it thrives is being given pseudo code for something simple and asking for the specific language code for it. Or translate between two languages.

    That’s… about it. And even that it fucks up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I bet it slows down the idiot software developers more than anything.

    Everything can be broken into smaller easily defined chunks and for that AI is amazing.

    Give me a function in Python that if I provide it a string of XYZ it will provide me an array of ABC.

    The trick is knowing how it fits in your larger codebase. That's where your developer skill is. It's no different now than it was when coding was offshored to India. We replaced Ravinder with ChatGPT.

    Edit - what I hate about AI is the blatant lying. I asked it for some ServiceNow code Friday and it told me to use the sys_audit_report table which doesn't exist. I told it so and then it gave me the sys_audit table.

    The future will be those who are smart enough to know when AI is lying and know how to fix it when it is. Ideally you are using AI for code you can do, you just don't want to. At least that's my experience. In that, it's invaluable.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›