you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That exains a lot...

I do use AI to assist my programming, but I always take what it suggests as likely highly flawed. It frequently sends me in the right direction but almost never is fully correct. I read the answers carefully, throw away answers frequently, and never use a solution without modifying it in some way.

Also, it is terrible at handling more complex tasks. I just use it to help me construct small building blocks while I design and build the larger code.

If 30% of my code was written by AI it would be utter trash.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    AI is like a utils library: it can do well known boilerplate like sorting very well, but it’s not likely to actually write your code for you

    AI is like fill down in spreadsheets: it can repeat a sequence with slight, obvious modifications but it’s not going to invent the data for you

    AI is like static analysis for tests: it can roughly write test outlines, but they might not actually tell you anything about the state of the code under test

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    And presumably must developers at Microsoft take a similar approach (all the 'this explains everything' comments notwithstanding, so it's ridiculous that they're even tracking this as a metric. If 30% is AI generated, but the devs had to throw away 90% of it, that doesn't mean you could get rid of the developer, as they did a huge amount of work just checking the AI and potentially fixing stuff after it.

    This is a metric that is misleading and will cause management to make the wrong decisions.

  • source
  • parent