←back to thread

214 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yodsanklai ◴[] 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 #
danielvaughn ◴[] No.45087699[source]
Yeah I’m still not more productive. Maybe 10% more. But it alleviates a lot of mental energy, which is very nice at the age of 40.
replies(9): >>45088209 #>>45088219 #>>45088793 #>>45089316 #>>45089574 #>>45090610 #>>45091064 #>>45091142 #>>45091665 #
cschneid ◴[] No.45089574[source]
I find AI is most useful at the ancillary extra stuff. Things that I'd never get to myself. Little scripts of course, but more like "it'd be nice to rename this entire feature / db table / tests to better match the words that the business has started to use to discuss it".

In the past, that much nitpicky detail just wouldn't have gotten done, my time would have been spent on actual features. But what I just described was a 30 minute background thing in claude code. Worked 95%, and needed just one reminder tweak to make it deployable.

The actual work I do is too deep in business knowledge to be AI coded directly, but I do use it to write tests to cover various edge cases, trace current usage of existing code, and so on. I also find AI code reviews really useful to catch 'dumb errors' - nil errors, type mismatches, style mismatch with existing code, and so on. It's in addition to human code reviews, but easy to run on every PR.

replies(2): >>45092096 #>>45094753 #
1. lovestaco ◴[] No.45094753{3}[source]
Nice, which reviewer do you use? I was using CodeRabbi now switched to LiveReview.