I could not disagree more strongly with everything you’ve said in this comment. > The way to code going forward with AI is Test Driven Development. No. TDD al

I could not disagree more strongly with everything you’ve said in this comment. > The way to code going forward with AI is Test Driven Development. No. TDD already collapses under its own weight as a project grows. > The code itself no longer matters. No. Definitely no. That’s absurd. You can’t box in a correct solution with guard rails. Especially since, even if you could get something close to that, you would also lose the ability to understand the tests. > You give the AI a set of requirements, ie. tests that need to pass, and then let it code whatever way it needs to in order to fulfill those requirements. That's it. The new reality us programmers need to face is that code itself has an exact value of $0. No. The opposite. When code is cheap, understanding and control become expensive. Code a human can understand will be the most valuable going forward. > That's because AI can generate it, and with every new iteration of the AI, the internal code will get better. No. All code is technical debt. AI produces code faster. Therefore AI produces bugs faster. ”Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it” -Brian Kernighan This is literally where we’re at. AI writes code just beyond its ability to fix. > What matters now are the prompts. No. This is such a dead end. It’s a roll of the dice, and so we have examples of people who seem to get it to build something faster. That’s like saying there are people who win the lottery. It’s true, and it also says nothing of your ability to repeat their process. Confirmation bias of the wins. But in building something reliable, we care more about the floor (minimum quality) than the ceiling (the peak it can reach sometimes).