[sudoshred]

As someone on a team with a less stringent code review culture, AI generated code creates more work when used indiscriminately. Good enough to get approved but full of non-obvious errors that cause expensive rework which only gets prioritized once the shortcomings become painfully obvious (usually) months after the original work was “completed” and once the original author has forgotten the details, or worse, left the team entirely. Not to say AI generated code is not occasionally valuable, just not for anything that is intended to be correct and maintainable indefinitely by other developers. The real challenge is people using AI generated code as a mechanism to avoid fully understanding the problem that needs to be solved.

[arresin]

Exactly it’s the non-obvious errors that are easy to miss—doubly so if you are just scanning the code. Those errors can create very hard to find bugs.

So between the debugging and many times you need to reprompt and redo (if you bother at all, but then that adds debugging time) is any time actually saved?

I think the dust hasn’t settled yet because no one has shipped mostly AI generated code for a non-trivial application. They couldn’t have with its current state. So it’s still unknown whether building on incredibly shaky ground will actually work in real life (I personally doubt it).