4 ms·
It is kind of like reviewing PRs from a very junior developer that might also give very convincing but buggy code and has no responsibility. Seriously don’t see
by ozgrakkurt 1y ago
It is kind of like reviewing PRs from a very junior developer that might also give very convincing but buggy code and has no responsibility. Seriously don’t see the point of it except doing copy paste refactoring or writing throw-away scripts. Which is still a lot so it is useful.
It needs to improve a lot more to match the expectations and it probably will. It is a bit frustrating to realise a PR is AI generated slop after reviewing 500 of 1000 lines
- peteforde 1y agoThis is actually supporting my point, though (again IMO). There's a world of difference between a very junior dev producing 1000 line PRs and an experienced developer collaborating with Cursor to do iterative feature development or troubleshoot deadlocks. Also, no shade to the fictional people in your example but if a junior gave me a 1000 line PR, it would be part of my job as the senior to raise warning bells about the size and origin of such a patch before dedicating significant time to reviewing it. As a leader, its your job to clearly define what LLMs are good and bad for, and what acceptable use looks like in the context and environment. If you make it clear that large AI generated patches are Not Cool and they do it anyhow... that's a strike.
- im3w1l 1y agoI think the best usecase by far is when you don't know where to start. The AI will put something out there. Either it's right in which case great, or it's wrong, and then trying to analyze why it's wrong often helps you get started too. Like to take a silly example let's say you want to build a bridge for cars and the AI suggests using one big slab of paper maiche. You reject this but now you have two good questions: what material should it have? and what shape?