Not exactly. It would mean it isn’t better than humans, so the only real metric for adopting it or not would be the cost. And considering it would require a human to review the code and fix the bugs anyway, I’m not sure the ROI would be that good in such case. If it was like, twice as good as an average developer, the ROI would be far better.
If, hypothetically, the code had the same efficacy and quality as human code, then it would be much cheaper and faster. Even if it was actually a little bit worse, it still would be amazingly useful.
My dishwasher sometimes doesn’t fully clean everything, it’s not as strong as a guarantee as doing it myself. I still use it because despite the lower quality wash that requires some spot washing, I still come out ahead.
Now this was hypothetical, LLM generated code is damn near useless for my usage, despite assumptions it would do a bit more. But if it did generate code that matched the request with comparable risk of bugs compared to doing it myself, I’d absolutely be using it. I suppose with the caveat that I have to consider the code within my ability to actual diagnose problems too…
Human coder here. First problem: define what is “writing code.” Well over 90% of software engineers I have worked with “write their own code” - but that’s typically less (often far less) than 50% of the value they provide to their organization. They also coordinate their interfaces with other software engineers, capture customer requirements in testable form, and above all else: negotiate system architecture with their colleagues to build large working systems.
So, AI has written 90% of the code I have produced in the past month. I tend to throw away more AI code than the code I used to write by hand, mostly because it’s a low-cost thing to do. I wish I had the luxury of time to throw away code like that in the past and start over. What AI hasn’t done is put together working systems of any value - it makes nice little microservices. If you architect your system as a bunch of cooperating microservices, AI can be a strong contributor on your team. If you expect AI to get any kind of “big picture” and implement it down to the source code level - your “big picture” had better be pretty small - nothing I have ever launched as a commercially viable product has been that small.
Writing code / being a software engineer isn’t like being a bricklayer. Yes, AI is laying 90% of our bricks today, but it’s not showing signs of being capable of designing the buildings, or even evaluating structural integrity of something taller than maybe 2 floors.
Dremor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Writing 90% of the code, and 90% of the bugs.
Gutek8134@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That would be actually good score, it would mean it’s about as good as humans, assuming the code works on the end
Dremor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not exactly. It would mean it isn’t better than humans, so the only real metric for adopting it or not would be the cost. And considering it would require a human to review the code and fix the bugs anyway, I’m not sure the ROI would be that good in such case. If it was like, twice as good as an average developer, the ROI would be far better.
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If, hypothetically, the code had the same efficacy and quality as human code, then it would be much cheaper and faster. Even if it was actually a little bit worse, it still would be amazingly useful.
My dishwasher sometimes doesn’t fully clean everything, it’s not as strong as a guarantee as doing it myself. I still use it because despite the lower quality wash that requires some spot washing, I still come out ahead.
Now this was hypothetical, LLM generated code is damn near useless for my usage, despite assumptions it would do a bit more. But if it did generate code that matched the request with comparable risk of bugs compared to doing it myself, I’d absolutely be using it. I suppose with the caveat that I have to consider the code within my ability to actual diagnose problems too…
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
Human coder here. First problem: define what is “writing code.” Well over 90% of software engineers I have worked with “write their own code” - but that’s typically less (often far less) than 50% of the value they provide to their organization. They also coordinate their interfaces with other software engineers, capture customer requirements in testable form, and above all else: negotiate system architecture with their colleagues to build large working systems.
So, AI has written 90% of the code I have produced in the past month. I tend to throw away more AI code than the code I used to write by hand, mostly because it’s a low-cost thing to do. I wish I had the luxury of time to throw away code like that in the past and start over. What AI hasn’t done is put together working systems of any value - it makes nice little microservices. If you architect your system as a bunch of cooperating microservices, AI can be a strong contributor on your team. If you expect AI to get any kind of “big picture” and implement it down to the source code level - your “big picture” had better be pretty small - nothing I have ever launched as a commercially viable product has been that small.
Writing code / being a software engineer isn’t like being a bricklayer. Yes, AI is laying 90% of our bricks today, but it’s not showing signs of being capable of designing the buildings, or even evaluating structural integrity of something taller than maybe 2 floors.