4 ms·
> The industry standard is that most code changes are AI generated. That is absolutely not the case.
by bigstrat2003 5mo ago
> The industry standard is that most code changes are AI generated.
That is absolutely not the case.
- charcircuit 5mo agoEveryone I know from every company I know no longer writes their code by hand anymore. Doing it by hand is the exception. Anecdotally I find it true, but I haven't seen actual industry wide surveys.
- Eufrat 5mo ago> Anecdotally I find it true, but I haven't seen actual industry wide surveys. And this is the problem. I have yet to see any actual studies of efficacy. It’s just people using “feelings” to justify the spend. If I did this for anything else, I might get fired. Why does AI get a pass for this? This is insane.
- charcircuit 5mo ago>Why does AI get a pass for this? Because business leaders are watching the exponential trend lines and are working off of predictions of the future.
- Eufrat 5mo agoThere is still no evidence, it’s all vibes. If you replaced AI with tulips, it would make no difference.
- charcircuit 5mo agoWe are at the point where QA can fix bugs by describing the issue they are seeing. We are at the point where bugs can be fixed automatically by hooking up AI to crash reporting telemetry. Tulips can't fix bugs.
- weakfish 5mo agoI think the other commenter's point is that there's no industry-wide proof that QA can fix bugs by just describing the issue. That's an anecdote. Why is it acceptable now to just follow anecdotes and FOMO?