Comment on Devs gaining little (if anything) from AI coding assistants

• aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s not about it being counterproductive. It’s about correctness. If a tool produces a million lines of pure compilable gibberish unrelated to what you’re trying to do, from a pure lines of code perspective, that’d be a productive tool. But software development is more complicated than writing the most lines.

  Now, I’m not saying that AI tools produce pure compilable gibberish, but they don’t reliably produce correct code either. So, they fall somewhere in the middle, and similarly to “driver assistance” technologies that half automate things but require constant supervision, it’s possible that the middle is the worst category for a tool to fall into.

  Everywhere around AI tools there are asterisks about it not always producing correct results. The developer using the tool is ultimately responsible for the output of their own commits, but the tool itself shares in the blame because of its unreliable nature.

  source

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Copilot produces useful and correct code for me 5 days a week. I’m sorry you don’t see the same benefits.

    source

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Have you read the article? It’s a shared experience multiple people report, and the article even provide statistics.

  source

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You can bury your head under the sand all you want. Meanwhile, the arguments proving the tech “flimsy af” will keep piling up.

      source

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        cio.com (which I’ve totally heard of before) – the forefront of objective reality and definitely not rage-clickbait

        source