I've seen this kind of take get a lot of hate online, but I do agree (ignoring any of the parent post's specifics). I think using AI is fine, but if you get out

I've seen this kind of take get a lot of hate online, but I do agree (ignoring any of the parent post's specifics). I think using AI is fine, but if you get output and you don't have the ability to validate it or look at it critically, you're just going to produce code with subtle bugs. I worked with a junior at my last job - great guy - who really got into ChatGPT when it came out. There we're _multiple_ times I hopped in a call to debug with him or reviewed a PR of his and had questions about certain very clear bugs. They were always AI generated, but unvalidated. One specific one that pops out was an htaccess file (which suck, to be fair). He was asked my why his changes didn't work as he wanted them to, and when I looked at it, it wasn't even close to doing what was intended. I asked him where he got the basis for these changes, and he pulled up a ChatGPT prompt. I understand that an LLM likely has very little htaccess knowledge compared to JavaScript, but the mindset of taking what it said and pasting it in without assessment isn't a very productive one. Same goes with StackOverflow as well, except you can at least get some feedback from other people via votes and comments. He also had a lot of imposter syndrome, and I can't imagine that relying on LLMs helped much with that either.