zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
At least opening PRs is a safe option, you can just dump the whole thing if it doesn't turn out to be useful.

Also, trying something new out will most likely have hiccups. Ultimately it may fail. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort.

The thing may rapidly evolve if it's being hard-tested on actual code and actual issues. For example it will be probably changed so that it will iterate until tests are actually running (and maybe some static checking can help it, like not deleting tests).

Waiting to see what happens. I expect it will find its niche in development and become actually useful, taking off menial tasks from developers.

>>balazs+K3
> I expect it will find its niche in development and become actually useful, taking off menial tasks from developers.

Reading AI generated code is arguably far more annoying than any menial task. Especially if the said code happens to have subtle errors.

Speaking from experience.

>>xnickb+3a
This is true for all code and has nothing to do with AI. Reading code has always been harder than writing code.

The joke is that PERL was a write-once, read-none language.

> Speaking from experience.

My experience is all code can have subtle errors, and I wouldn't treat any PR differently.