> one doesn't need to run some sort of enormous study to establish the point that these code assistants are not a magic gateway to quality code at any experienc

> one doesn't need to run some sort of enormous study to establish the point that these code assistants are not a magic gateway to quality code at any experience level You just have to use it a couple times to figure this out. It’s pretty obvious what the limitations are and most programmers are smart enough to understand what it is and what it isn’t. This is why I’m skeptical it will be a problem, it’s not being sold that way and after using it that will be obvious. So anyone dumb enough to treat it like that and trust the output blind probably wasn’t a good programmer before. And if they keep doing it they don’t have proper incentive structures to not produce buggy code (senior devs, bosses, customers etc will notice that output is getting worse at a minimum when the product breaks or doing QA).