gooosle
Joined 2 years ago
Joined 2 years ago
Going the athlete route is generally easier and requires less time investment than going the academic route.
I don't see how you can claim gambling, and pointless discussion about some arbitrary game you (they) don't even play are positive. Financial transactions for the sake of financial transactions are also completely pointless.
You're bringing up various completely unrelated factors seemingly as a way of avoiding the obvious point of the anecdotal story - that AI for coding just isn't that great (yet).
What was claimed was that a complete feature was built in record time with AI. What was actually built was a useless and buggy piece of junk that wasted reviewer time and was ultimately thrown out, and it took far longer than claimed.
There were no useful insights or speed up coming out of this code. I implemented the feature from scratch in 30 mins - because it was actually quite easy to do manually (<100 loc).
....
That reminds me of when my manager (a very smart, very AI-bullish ex-IC) told us about how he used AI to implement a feature over the weekend and all it took him was 20 mins. It sounds absolutely magical to me and I make a note to use AI more. I then go to review the PR, and of course there are multiple bugs and unintended side-effects in the code. Oh and there are like 8 commits spread over a 60 hour window... I manually spin up a PR which accomplishes the same thing properly... takes me 30mins.
If you pick the right reason/name for X - anyone who crticises you can also automatically be labelled racist, dumb, fascist or whatever as well.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Tech...