Have you read the article? It’s a shared experience multiple people report, and the article even provide statistics.
Comment on Devs gaining little (if anything) from AI coding assistants
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoOkay, so if the tool seems counterproductive for you, it’s very assuming to generalize that and assume it’s the same for everyone else too. I definitely do not have that experience.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
[deleted]FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
You can bury your head under the sand all you want. Meanwhile, the arguments proving the tech “flimsy af” will keep piling up.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
cio.com (which I’ve totally heard of before) – the forefront of objective reality and definitely not rage-clickbait
aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Copilot produces useful and correct code for me 5 days a week. I’m sorry you don’t see the same benefits.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago