The latter, I'd have to suggest. GPT-4 generates code that is slightly better than the average junior programmer, which is to say, it is often confidently incor

The latter, I'd have to suggest. GPT-4 generates code that is slightly better than the average junior programmer, which is to say, it is often confidently incorrect and needs review before committing, but either option remains a net productivity gain than no assistant at all. "Your job will not be taken by an AI. Your job will be taken by someone assisted by an AI." The process touched on in the article, with thorough review before commit by a human with in-depth experience of the language and APIs and the domain in question, is exactly how AI-generated code should be incorporated into a workflow. The earlier slander against the author's technical ability seems misguided and unsupportable.