icoder
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
I also see devs, seniors as well, that have a different experience. At least that's what they say. I stay open to the possibility that I'm doing or seeing it 'wrong', but I'm far from convinced. I do like to experiment like you wrote in a later comment, things may change, and even now I do find it can be very powerful, for the right tasks.
They said they investigated it and concluded it did not break any rules and no actions where taken.
I recognize this discrepancy where review effort becomes more than the coding itself. I don't think I could sustain that for long.
But what if the AI is used to build up a(n otherwise) genuine human response, like: 'Perhaps the reason behind this is such-and-such, (a quick google)|($AI) suggests that indeed it is common for blah to be blah, so...'
Perhaps this is just the limit of her hearing capacity. Or do you think she should not settle for this and push for something better?
> The code working and our feature shipping is way way more important.
I like that we both use AI very differently (you YOLO, I don't) but can agree that these are basically the important questions. If a company or team answers them like you do, I agree with the conclusion (YOLO). To me that's still a decision to be made though, and to be made wisely. Whether to accept the code may become unmaintainable, to forwardly rely on Fable 6 and to ship above anything (or at least a lot) else.