AI generation when writing software is a false economy. You are replacing writing code with code review. Code review is harder and requires you to already have an understanding of the domain which often means that you would’ve even able to write it yourself to begin with. If you code gen something because you don’t know how to write it yourself, you by definition cannot review it without going though an effort equivalent to writing it yourself in the first place.
Unless of course you don’t care about code review and so doom yourself into treating software like magical incantations that break randomly for no perceivable reason; but no good mage would do that, surely.
@xkummerer@mary Because it's managers who have the power to make that sort of decision, obviously.
But in code, you could invert the relationship: Rather than having the AI write code and the human review it (before sending it off to another human for review), you could have the AI review the human's code (also before sending it off to another human for review). This lessens the reviewing-human's (managerial/supervisory) workload, and is less likely to have a destructive effect on quality.
@datarama@xkummerer@mary Grammarly for coding, in other words? Except I can tell you, as someone who has both worked professionally as an editor and done a bit of purely amateur, hobbyist-level programming (back when it was called "programming" and not "coding"), that Grammarly is often wrong, and reviewing code for its functionality is a way more difficult task than proofreading text for its adherence to conventions.
@KeithAmmann@xkummerer@mary I develop software for a living (and have also done it recreationally since I was a child).
What I'm saying is exactly that a not-too-irresponsible role of a tool that is going to get things wrong is more like Grammarly and less like any work an actual human does. You don't expect Grammarly to do the work of a competent editor, much like you shouldn't expect an LLM to do the work of a competent reviewer (or programmer).