Devs gaining little (if anything) from AI coding assistants

Comments

• ShunkW@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  And yet, higher ups continue to lay off more devs because AI “is the future”.

  source

  • breckenedge@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In my experience, most of the tech layoffs have been non-devs. PMs and Designers have been the hardest hit and often their roles are being eliminated.

    source

    • ShunkW@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I mean, I’m a dev who got laid off almost a year ago and still can’t find anything. I know tons of others who are in similar positions. So…

      source
• einkorn@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  For me, it is a glorified auto-complete function. Could definitely live without it.

  source

  • Kualk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    We always have to ask what language is it auto-completing for? If it is a strictly typed language, then existing tooling is already doing everything possible and I see no need for additional improvement. If it is non-strictly typed language, then I can see how it can get a little more helpful, but without knowledge of actual context I am not sure if it can get a lot more accurate.

    I recall co-pilot demo people using Python. Same demo with GO, C#, Rust would have less impact.

    source
  • CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Same for me, but that glorified auto complete helps a lot.

    source

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hell yea. Our unit test coverage went way up because you can blow through test creation in second. I had a large complicated migration from one data set to another with specific mutations based on weird rules and GPT got me 80% of the way there and with a little nudging basically got it perfect. Code that would’ve taken a few hours took about 6 prompts. If I’m curious about a new library I can get a working example right away to see how everything fits together. When these articles say there’s no benefit I feel people aren’t using these tools or don’t know how to use them effectively.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• tonytins@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Places GPT-based “AI” next to flying cars

  source

  • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Flying cars exist, they’re just not cost effective. AFAICT there’s no GPT that is proficient at coding yet.

    source

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      As far as I know, right now the main problem with flying cars is that they are nowhere near as idiot-proof as a normal car, and don’t really solve any transportation problem since most countries’ air regulations agencies would require them to exclusively take off and land in airports… Where you can usually find tons of planes that can go much further (and are much more cost effective, as you pointed out)

      source
    • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s a lot easier to access ChatGPT than it is to access a flying car

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• tkw8@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’m shocked. There must be an error in this analysis. /s

  Maybe engage an AI coding assistant to massage the data lol

  source