> for which the dev feels no ownership. This is definitely something I feel is a choice. I've been experimenting quite a bit with AI generated code, and with a

> for which the dev feels no ownership. This is definitely something I feel is a choice. I've been experimenting quite a bit with AI generated code, and with any code that I intend to publish or maintain I've been very conscious in making the decision that I own the code and that if I'm not entirely happy with the AI generated output I have to fix it (or force the AI to fix it). Which is a very different way of reviewing code than how you review another humans code, where you make compromises because you're equals. I think this produces fine code, not particularly quickly but used well probably somewhat quicker (and somewhat higher quality code) than not using AI. On the flip side on some throwaway experiments and patches to personalize open source products that I have absolutely no intention of upstreaming I've made the decision that the "AI" owns the code, and gone much more down the vibe coding route. This produces unmaintainable sloppy code, but it works, and it takes a lot less work than doing it properly. I suspect the companies that are trying to force people to use AI are going to get a lot more of the "no human ownership" code than individuals like me experimenting because they think its interesting/fun.