[dryarzeg]

> but even the best driver can make a mistake

Well, if you put it this way... even the best programmer in the world, who doesn't use AI at all, can also make a mistake. Of course, their mistakes would probably be less frequent, but I guess they wouldn't blame IDE for poor syntax highlighting (if it's good enough, of course) or the compiler or interpreter for failing to spot the logical error unrelated to syntax rules. They would say "it was my mistake". The problem with AI-generated code, though, is that those who generate it almost never take responsibility for it. They'll say something like, "AI made a mistake here and there." I have never seen someone who has generated flawed code using AI to take responsibility for it. And that's the main problem.

It doesn't matter whether you're a bad driver or the best driver. If you cause an accident, you must be held responsible. As simple as that.

> Like cars, it's an inherently flawed piece of technology

Sorry, but what exactly do you mean? I'm just curious to know what you mean when you say that cars are "an inherently flawed piece of technology".

[orwin]

Moving half a ton metal boxes very fast in space shared with normal humans will always kill people, and making them not share the space with humans is too impractical and expensive. So cars are a technology that _will_ kill some of us, by design. But their advantage is too great to be ignore, so we accept the loss.

And yes, i broadly agree with most of what you said, people show a lack of accountability that also translate to a "i don't need to read the code" attitude. That's why to me, most people who see better than 20% increase of their productivity consistently and aren't just writing short scripts are just bad devs that deport the issues in their code to either their seniors or to later.