zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
Replace the AI agent with any other new technology and this is an example of a company:

1. Working out in the open

2. Dogfooding their own product

3. Pushing the state of the art

Given that the negative impact here falls mostly (completely?) on the Microsoft team which opted into this, is there any reason why we shouldn't be supporting progress here?

>>robotc+Pn
"Pushing the state of the art" and experimenting on a critical software development framework is probably not the best idea.

>>throwa+os
Why not, when it goes through code review by experienced software engineers who are experts on the subject in a codebase that is covered by extensive unit tests?

>>Dlanv+Vw
I don't know about you, but it's much more likely for me to let a bug slip when I'm reviewing someone else's code than when I'm writing it myself.

This is what's happening right now: they are having to review every single line produced by this machine and trying to understand why it wrote what it wrote.

Even with experienced developers reviewing and lots of tests, the likelihood of bugs in this code compared to a real engineer working on it is much higher.

Why not do this on less mission critical software at the very least?

Right now I'm very happy I don't write anything on .NET if this is what they'll use as a guinea pig for the snake oil.