zlacker

>>jnord+(OP)
This article made no sense to me. It is talking about AI-generated code eating SaaS. That's not what is going to replace SaaS. When AI is able to do the job itself — without generating code — that's what is going to replace SaaS.

AI-generated code still requires software engineers to build, test, debug, deploy, secure, monitor, be on-call, handle incidents, and so on. That's very expensive. It is much cheaper to pay a small monthly fee to a SaaS company.

>>latefo+pg
Perhaps OP's argument still applies to dev-oriented SaaS.

Are you as a dev still going to pay for analytics and dashboards that you could have propped up by Claude in 5 minutes instead?

>>jdthed+FN
Yes, because then I know the code is properly engineering, tested, maintained and supported.

Generating code is one part of software engineering is a small part of SaaS.

>>rhubar+IO
How do you/I know that? I implemented OpenTelemetry in a project of mine recently and was shocked to see the number of AI authored commits in the git repository.

>>Invert+TX
> How do you/I know that? I implemented OpenTelemetry in a project of mine recently and was shocked to see the number of AI authored commits

Do you pay for OpenTelemetry? How is this related?

>>re-thc+371
If I did, I likely wouldn't have access to the source code and wouldn't be able to verify the degree of AI input.

So, I ask again - how do you know that the service you're paying for is all of those things?