> It's funny how most people just assume engineers aren't checking the output of Copilot's suggestions. I didn't say that. I'm assuming the engineer is checki

> It's funny how most people just assume engineers aren't checking the output of Copilot's suggestions. I didn't say that. I'm assuming the engineer is checking Copilot's output, but that they will sometimes fail to catch bugs in Copilot's suggested code. > Reading code for correctness takes only a moment, you either know how to verify its correctness or you don't; writing the code yourself doesn't change that. I don't buy this framing. I think it's entirely possible for a programmer to miss an error when reviewing code, that they would not have made if writing the code themselves. I've encountered this many times when copying+pasting+updating my own code to use in a slightly different context. It's easy to miss small mistakes, like failing to find+replace a variable name, despite that I wouldn't have made that mistake if writing the code afresh. > Furthermore, code which is meant to be depended upon should come with tests, and if those tests pass with bad code, the tests are wrong. Test suites should improve code-quality regardless of your policy on use of AI tools. Using AI tools may still degrade code-quality.