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?

>>Invert+pc1
> So, I ask again - how do you know that the service you're paying for is all of those things?

How do you know anything? How do you know the bank won't lose your money? How do you know the bank note you hold is worth what it says? How do you know?