zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
A comment on the first pull request provides some context:

> The stream of PRs is coming from requests from the maintainers of the repo. We're experimenting to understand the limits of what the tools can do today and preparing for what they'll be able to do tomorrow. Anything that gets merged is the responsibility of the maintainers, as is the case for any PR submitted by anyone to this open source and welcoming repo. Nothing gets merged without it meeting all the same quality bars and with us signing up for all the same maintenance requirements.

>>kruuud+K9
The author of that comment, an employee of Microsoft, goes on to say:

> It is my opinion that anyone not at least thinking about benefiting from such tools will be left behind.

The read here is: Microsoft is so abuzz with excitement/panic about AI taking all software engineering jobs that Microsoft employees are jumping on board with Microsoft's AI push out of a fear of "being left behind". That's not the confidence inspiring the statement they intended it to be, it's the opposite, it underscores that this isn't the .net team "experimenting to understand the limits of what the tools" but rather the .net team trying to keep their jobs.

>>abxyz+6d
If you're not using it where it's useful to you, then I still wouldn't say you're getting left behind, but you're making your job harder than it has to be. Anecdotally I've found it useful mostly for writing unit tests and sometimes debugging (can be as effective as a rubber duck).

It's like the 2025 version not not using an IDE.

It's a powerful tool. You still need to know when to and when not to use it.

>>Vicini+Yr
> It's like the 2025 version not not using an IDE.

That's right on the mark. It will save you a little bit of work on tasks that aren't the bottleneck on your productivity, and disrupt some random tasks that may or may not be important.

It's makes so little difference that plenty of people in 2025 don't use an IDE, and looking at their performance from the outside one just can't tell.

Except that LLMs have less potential to improve your tasks and more potential to be disruptive.

>>marcos+Jx
You're right on the money. I've been amongst the most productive developers in every place I've worked at for the past 10 years while not using an IDE. AI is not even close to as revolutionary as it's being sold. Unfortunately, as always, the ones buying this crap are not the ones that actually do the work.

Even for writing tests, you have to proof-read every single line and triple check they didn't write a broken test. It's absolutely exhausting.

>>Draike+JP
I've encountered LLM generated comments that don't even reflect what the code is doing, or, worse, subtly describe the code inaccurately. The most insidious disenchanting code I've ever seen has been exactly of this sort, and it's getting produced by the boatload daily now.

>>nyarla+5t1
I really don't understand what is going on. I try to, I read the papers, the threads, I think about it. But I can't figure this out.

How can it be that people expect that pumping more energy into closed systems could do anything else than raise entropy? Because that's what it is. You attach GPU farms to your code base and make them pump code into it? You're pumping energy into a closed system. The result cannot be other than greater entropy.

>>namari+cq2
Of course! But just look at all the pretty lights all that energy is flashing.