Survey: a third of senior developers say over half their code is AI-generated

Developers are lazy. Anything that makes development faster or easier is going to be welcomed by a good developer.

If you find it is quicker not to use it then you might hate it, but I think it is probably better in some cases and worse in other cases.

as a developer my first priority is whether the software works, not whether it is fast or easy to develop

> Anything that makes development faster or easier is going to be welcomed by a good developer.

I strongly disagree. Struggling with a problem creates expertise. Struggle is slow, and it's hard. Good developers welcome it.

Indeed. This is my biggest fear for engineers as a whole. LLMs can be a great productivity boost in the very short term, but can so easily be abused. If you build a product with it, suddenly everyone is an engineering manager and no one is an expert on it. And growth as an engineer is stunted. It reminds me of abusing energy drinks or grinding to the point of burnout... But worse.

I think we'll find a middle ground though. I just think it hasn't happened yet. I'm cautiously optimistic.

I think we can assume that what daft_pink means by "development" includes that the software works.

("Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> Struggling with a problem creates expertise. Struggle is slow, and it's hard. Good developers welcome it.

There is significant evidence that shows mixed results for struggle-based learning - it’s highly individualized and has to be calibrated carefully: https://consensus.app/search/challenge-based-learning-outcom...

I don't particularly care what this, or any, LLM spits out, and given the pervasive problems that have bedeviled social-science research, I also don't care what the results show, let alone what they show on average.

Anybody who has developed software should understand the value of struggling with a difficult problem. I'm obviously not talking about classroom exercises where the problem sets are expected to match a given skill level or cultivate a specific skill set, so the very idea of individualized, calibrated learning is irrelevant.

As a teacher I'm also 100% uninterested in highly individualized, calibrated challenges for what I teach -- or for what I do professionally. The people who need those highly individualized, wildly different, more gently graduated increases in difficulty, for general problem solving or for the study of any area of programming or computer science, simply should not become engineers.

Nah, don't agree that struggle adds much.

I'm in the 10<x<20 range of experience.

People will learn if they find the lesson valuable and interesting, no matter how much struggle and time wasting was involved.

While I appreciate that you don’t particularly care what I’ve shared, or what any social science research says, instead seeking to fair your own subjective experience and generalizing it to others, and going so far as to say that as an educator you believe people who need modified learning methods or methodologies, or even additional help and assistance to learn concepts that others may find simple don’t deserve to be engineers, some of us prefer to actually engage with data and reality.

You can operate on your own opinion all you want, but here we value data and science and facts. You have provided nothing but your own fulminations and prejudices. Enjoy them while you can, I will warn students away from taking your classes because you, sir, at a minimum, believe that anyone with a learning disability shouldn’t be an engineer, which is the fundamental definition of ableism, and failing to give accommodation, as an educator, is a violation of the ADA.