Finally found a comment down here that I like. I'm also with the notion of tests and also iterating until you get to a solution you like. I also don't see anyth

Finally found a comment down here that I like. I'm also with the notion of tests and also iterating until you get to a solution you like. I also don't see anything particularly "terrifying" that many other comments suggest. At the end of the day, we're engineers that write complex symbols on a 2d canvas, for something that is (ultimately, even if the code being written is machine to machine or something) used for some human purpose. Now, if those complex symbols are readable, fully covered in tests, and meets requirements / specifications, I don't see why I should care if a human, an AI, or a monkey generated those symbols. If it meets the spec, it meets the spec. Seems like most people in these threads are making arguments against others who are describing usage of these tools in a grossly incorrect manner from the get go. I've said it before in other AI threads that I think (at least half?) of the noise and disagreement around AI generated code is like a bunch of people trying to use a hammer when they needed a screwdriver and then complaining that the hammer didnt work like a screwdriver!!! I just don't get it. When you're dealing with complex systems, i.e, reality, these tools (or any tool for that matter) will never work like a magic wand.