No lol

What if we just learned to code and wrote if ourselves and took some personal interest in the lines we produce?

Almost by definition, maintainability doesn't refer to a "specific part"

https://www.softwareimprovementgroup.com/blog/artcraft-adobe-clone-ai-code-quality/

I'm not interested in getting into an argument about this any further, look through their github issues, there's plenty to learn.

As a note, if you think they're genuinely reviewing this much code at this speed, I think you need to consider the logistics of that.

Also unsustainable: the code they generate.

It's huge, sprawling and messy.

https://github.com/storytold/photocraft/issues/6903

https://github.com/storytold/artcraft/issues/2273

https://www.softwareimprovementgroup.com/blog/artcraft-adobe-clone-ai-code-quality/

Exactly. Lots of good stuff written in Rust!

Scroll the comments, we've had this exact argument.

People literally do struggle with basic maths also

Yeah that should be fine, some recipes use malt syrup instead.

Any kind of sugar syrup that can feed the yeast would be viable.

Why would you take that argument and apply it elsewhere? Not every argument applies to every single thing.

Again, rather than just "maybe we should hold onto the skills we have", the AI brain solution is "let's just build our own infrastructure for doing the thinking for us".

There's a fairly hard limit in the kind of paywall that can be put in front of lighters, axes and pencils.

Not all technology is bad, not all exchanges are detrimental.

People keep doing this - arguing that if you're against AI you must not want to use any technology.

This seems like a particularly expensive and resource hungry solution when we could just train more teachers and tutors.

While anecdotes are iffy sometimes, I think they're alright in this context.

If people feel the need to reach for calculators rather than doing simple maths in their heads, that at least nods in the direction that the technology has impacted our skill development, or at the very least, made us inclined to use the tool over our own facilities.

But also, there's emerging evidence of the issues with frequent AI use, so it seems pointless to split hairs.

Edit: just to clarify, I was agreeing with you in my first comment

I was saying the person you responded to was essentially saying "nuh uh!"

It has potential, though I wonder if that's genuinely better than studying the old fashioned way.

It can definitely feel more dynamic, I'm not convinced the outcomes are provably better.