We need distinguish between master programmers who can evaluate AI-generated code and submit it for proper review, and first year interns being told to add 45 features to Friday’s update.
The mindset of programming is completely different than rubber stamping/tweaking slop… don’t know where they are going to get real developers in 20 years.
I look at it like COBOL coding. In 20 years they can call me or of retirement and pay me a boatload to maintain the garbage mess that is all that’s left.
Also people act like only AI code is bad quality and full of bugs. I’ve seen enough legacy codebases, and my own side projects, to know that AI does not have a monopoly on slop. We humans are perfectly capable of that ourselves. It’s the code review process that prevents that being merged, AI or not
We need distinguish between master programmers who can evaluate AI-generated code and submit it for proper review, and first year interns being told to add 45 features to Friday’s update.
Good thing that pipeline of people isn’t under existential threat. If we get rid of all the interns, problem solved. AI can do that! /s
The mindset of programming is completely different than rubber stamping/tweaking slop… don’t know where they are going to get real developers in 20 years.
I look at it like COBOL coding. In 20 years they can call me or of retirement and pay me a boatload to maintain the garbage mess that is all that’s left.
Is there any amount of money that can unfuck a codebase after 20 years of rot?
At that point it would just be “keep it alive until the replacement is ready”
Also people act like only AI code is bad quality and full of bugs. I’ve seen enough legacy codebases, and my own side projects, to know that AI does not have a monopoly on slop. We humans are perfectly capable of that ourselves. It’s the code review process that prevents that being merged, AI or not