zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
Weird to claim the llm does all the boring learning and boilerplate for you as a selling point, but then also insist we still need to responsibly read all the output, and if you can't understand it's a "skill issue".

Also the emphasis on greenfield projects? Starting is by FAR the easiest part. That's not impressive to me. When do we get to code greenfield for important systems? Reminds me of the equally absurd example of language choice. You think you get to choose? What?

Imagine all the code these agents are going to pump out that can never be reviewed in a reasonable time frame. The noise generated at the whim of bike-shedding vibe coders is going to drown all the senior reviewers soon enough. I'll call that Cowboy Coders on Steroids. Anyone with skills will be buried in reviews, won't have time for anything else, and I predict stricter code gen policies to compensate.

>>r0s+6T
I think the point is that the person orchestrating the agent(s) reviews the code. It doesn't make sense to have 5 Juniors using agents to submit PRs and a senior or two reviewing it all. You just have the senior(s) orchestrating agents and reviewing it themselves. Maybe one or two juniors because we still need to train new devs, but maybe the junior doesn't even use an LLM. Maybe the junior writes code manually so they can learn programming properly before they start being an "AI lead".

Everyone is still responsible for the code they produce. I review my own PRs before I expect others to, and I don't even use AI. I think what the article describes seems interesting though.