←back to thread

38 points 01-_- | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ssivark ◴[] No.44396070[source]
If I have decent autocomplete where I type half the characters and the AI predicts the other half that technically satisfies this metric.

Notice the loophole: there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from. Most of the problem -> code “work” would still be done by a human in that situation — even if technically 50% of the code is “AI generated” [because the human did all the hard work of generating the context necessary for those tokens, including the preceding tokens of code].

As the saying goes… lies, damned lies, and statistics.

replies(3): >>44396426 #>>44397536 #>>44399676 #
AndrewKemendo ◴[] No.44397536[source]
> there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from

Infer it from the article:

“as much as 30% to 50% of the company’s work is now completed by AI”

There. That’s not nothing.

You can and should call bs on all corporate claims, but this idea that coding agents at scale don’t work or is just total fluff is just wrong.

What I’m seeing is that people over 25 who like to write code and have spent their lives “perfecting” their environment and code generation process, can’t stand that businesses prefer lower quality code that’s created faster and cheaper than their “perfect” code.

Software engineers (and engineers generally) are closer economically to day laborers than theoretical physicists - but we/they refuse to believe that.

This is why unionization matters but you can’t unionize divas until they actually start losing jobs.

replies(3): >>44397811 #>>44399236 #>>44400143 #
1. pier25 ◴[] No.44399236[source]
It's not about perfect code but maintainable code that can be debugged when (not if) things go wrong.