zlacker

>>gregor+(OP)
This is exactly the direction I expect AI-assisted coding to go in. Not software engineers being kicked out and some business person pressing a few buttons to have a fully functional app (as is playing out in a lot of fantasies on LinkedIn & X), but rather experienced engineers using AI to generate bits of code and then meticulously reviewing and testing them.

The million dollar (perhaps literally) question is – could @kentonv have written this library quicker by himself without any AI help?

>>paxys+A6
The million-dollar question is not whether you can review at the speed the model is coding. It is whether you can trust review alone to catch everything.

If a robot assembles cars at lightning speed... but occasionally misaligns a bolt, and your only safeguard is a visual inspection afterward, some defects will roll off the assembly line. Human coders prevent many bugs by thinking during assembly.

>>belter+5a
> Human coders prevent many bugs by thinking during assembly.

I'm far from an AI true believer but come on -- human coders write bugs, tons and tons of bugs. According to Peopleware, software has "an average defect density of one to three defects per hundred lines of code"!

>>pton_x+yn
My point is that the bugs generated by LLM or human coders are different.