- cross-posted to:
- programming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- programming@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/1441589
You must log in or register to comment.
Shit was found in the toilet. Type shit
No shit Sherlock. Everyone with a functional brain knew that from the beginning. We also know that the word is license whitewashing by slop, not AI.
Only morons think they can develop good software by using coding agents. And yes, that includes Torvalds, whose sanity is pretty much a goner.
Preach, the number of people that think AI writes good consistent code is too damn high.
No, they didn’t, and your high horse view is just propagating the problem.
Most developers that I’ve worked with will build slop even without AI.
They don’t recognize the quality issues with AI-generated code at all.
I’m down voting you but I agree. Most people did produce slop before. Those people copy and pasting from stack overflow where not joking
I’m confused. Why are you downvoting me? Do you think that my comment is not contributing to our discussion?
That seems unlikely given that you’re replying to me.
They say, using an ai generated image
AI usage generates a fragile aesthetic.
I wonder how the author managed to get his robot to see the house of cards or realize that it’s cause for concern.
I can’t say I agree with this.
AI writes shallow tests.
It definitely did in the past. But not any more. It’s far better at writing tests than humans and I haven’t seen a single nonsense test out of Opus 5.5.
AI writes overly complex ccode
This one I will kind of give him. AI does seem to like being super paranoid - writing tons of checks for things that we don’t really need to check, and adding config flags for absolutely everything. You can just tell it not to do that though. Annoying that you have to, but it does work.
Reliance on AI decreases human understanding
Yes but does it matter? Does your manager understand the codebase? Does his manager?
AI moves too quickly to maintain a high quality bar
It’s too quick for thorough human code review definitely, but I don’t think that means you can’t have a high quality bar. There are other ways to ensure a high quality product. Traditional QA testing for example.
AI writes overly complex ccode
100%. It doesn’t have a concept of maintainability. If you tell it to do X it will happily rewrite half o the codebase to achieve it where a person would stop and look for alternative solution. I see this as the biggest issue with current models. They can implement anything but someone still needs to check if the solution makes sense. AI can’t tell.
Funny I’ve seen the opposite. I want it to rewrite half the codebase to do things properly. A human shouldn’t do that because of the effort, but it’s no issue for AI.
However it very often says “that’s too big of a change so I’ll do this workaround instead” which is not what I want at all.
But I agree they sometimes implement things that don’t actually make sense to do. Mostly you can solve that by just asking how to program / code works at a high level without needing to read every line.
Yes, sometimes it’s the opposite. I guess the issue is simply that AI can’t tell between those two. It’s great a big rewrites because it has such a huge context but it will often try to sneak in some things you didn’t ask for or skip some parts because… no one knows why. Then on other occasions it will add tons of code to fix a bug in some extremely unlikely path. It’s very smart and very stupid at the same time.
deleted by creator
