←back to thread

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

(www.fastly.com)
214 points Brajeshwar | 4 comments | 31 Aug 25 14:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
yodsanklai ◴[31 Aug 25 21:40 UTC] No.45087351[source]▶
Seems about right for me (older developer at a big tech company). But we need to define what it means that the code is AI-generated. In my case, I typically know how I want the code to look like, and I'm writing a prompt to tell the agent to do it. The AI doesn't solve any problem, it just does the typing and helps with syntax. I'm not even sure I'm ultimately more productive.
replies(6): >>45087633 #>>45087699 #>>45087883 #>>45089870 #>>45090395 #>>45090712 #
ojosilva ◴[31 Aug 25 23:05 UTC] No.45087883[source]▶
I didn't see much mention of tab-completions in the survey and comments here. To me that's the ultimate coding AI is doing at my end, even though it seems to pass unnoticed nowadays. It's massive LOC (and comments!), and that's were I find AI immensely productive.
replies(3): >>45088063 #>>45088071 #>>45088217 #
ottah ◴[31 Aug 25 23:36 UTC] No.45088071[source]▶
Don't you have to keep dismissing incorrect auto-complete? For me I have a particular idea in mind, and I find auto-complete to be incredibly annoying.

It breaks flow. It has no idea my intention, but very eagerly provides suggestions I have to stop and swat away.

replies(3): >>45088174 #>>45088190 #>>45091173 #
apt-apt-apt-apt ◴[31 Aug 25 23:57 UTC] No.45088190[source]▶
Yeah, [autocomplete: I totally agree]

it's so [great to have auto-complete]

annoying to constantly [have to type]

have tons of text dumped into your text area. Sometimes it looks plausibly right, but with subtle little issues. And you have to carefully analyze whatever it output for correctness (like constant code review).

replies(1): >>45088246 #
1. shiandow ◴[01 Sep 25 00:06 UTC] No.45088246[source]▶
That we're trying to replace entry/mediocre/expert level code writing with entry/mediocre/expert level code reading is one of the strangest aspects of this whole AI paradigm.

There's literally no way I can see that resulting in better quality, so either that is not what is happening or we're in for a rude awakening at some point.

replies(3): >>45088389 #>>45088734 #>>45089299 #
2. gnerd00 ◴[01 Sep 25 00:41 UTC] No.45088389[source]▶
there is no "we" or at least not sufficiently differentiated. Another layer is inserted into .. everything? think MSFT Teams. Your manager's manager is being empowered.. you become a truck driver who must stay on the route, on schedule or be replaced.
3. oblio ◴[01 Sep 25 01:55 UTC] No.45088734[source]▶
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/26/reading-code-is-li...

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... (read the bold text in the middle of the article)

These articles are 25 years old.

4. jcgrillo ◴[01 Sep 25 03:55 UTC] No.45089299[source]▶
This is how you know the "AI" proselytizers are completely full of shit. They're trying to bend the narrative with a totally unrealistic scenario where reading and reviewing code is somehow "more efficient" than writing it. This is only true if you

(a) don't know what you're doing and just approve everything you see or

(b) don't care how bad things get