(no title)
josephwegner | 10 months ago
This doesn't seem applicable in most contexts. Yes, when I'm coding for fun or purely for learning the finished product is less relevant... but I'd guess the vast majority of code that is written is for a business that _only_ cares about the product. Code is an implementation detail.
If (and this is a _big_ if) AI-based coding can increase developer velocity even as little as 50%, no sane business is going to let their engineers ignore it just because it's not as fun as artisanal code.
Sayrus|10 months ago
Depending on how you measure that velocity (e.g. including security risks, debugging capabilities, ...) even as little as 5% increase is a no brainer for a business. Whether it's AI, powerful laptops, a fully-fledged IDE, an environment with a good dev experience, anything that gives a few percent increase snowballs into millions over an entire workforce.
Whether the current AI capabilities provide that increase without trade-offs that would be too heavy later one is a question that still seems up to debate.
3np|10 months ago
I do not believe that corps make rational decisions around these matters.
rocqua|10 months ago
Those things don't happen because the slowdown required before adoption, and the office politics of convincing everyone to make a change, and then the effort of convincing people that this new thing is what should be changed to.
constantcrying|10 months ago
I have no doubt that AI, right now saves me 5% of my time. That is 24 minutes a day I am not searching for something in the documentation of some library.
baq|10 months ago
It’s worse. Code is a liability.