3 ms·

I'm personally fine with that as long as integrating a "junior dev level" AI coder doesn't create more debugging for me. The problem I see right now, as this cr

I'm personally fine with that as long as integrating a "junior dev level" AI coder doesn't create more debugging for me. The problem I see right now, as this creeps from writing narrowly defined functions to spewing out whole architectures is that it's turning a small footgun into a giant one that gets much, much harder to debug and understand. If you don't even know parts of your own program, how are you supposed to know why something is going wrong? Ask the AI? And then ask the AI to fix it? The danger here is that people start generating code they can't even read or debug; it may work in most cases but when it fails, it will fail spectacularly.

PeterisP 4y ago
I think the "junior dev" analogy is spot on - just as many junior devs are talented and productive enough to be really dangerous without some supervision to ensure that the result fits in a reasonable architecture that won't result in burnout-driven suicides for its maintainers, you have to apply the same level of senior guidance and supervision to LLM-generated code. Of course, there will be companies who'll get the one bright-eyed young person whom they can exploit the most, and get them to apply ChatGPT to build all of their systems, cheerfully reimplementing all the most popular architecture flaws and (e.g.) security issues that are seen in the many repositories of old code used in training the model.