Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Also it’s not that they can’t be seen, it’s just that the effort required to spot them is greater and the likelihood to miss something is higher.

Greater compared to human code? Not sure about that, but I’m not disagreeing either. Greater compared to verified able programmers, sure, but in general?..

I also really really dislike the non-declarative nature of generated code, which fundamentally rules it out as a reliable end to end system tool unless we can get those fully comprehensive tests up to scratch, for me at least.

I don’t think I’m getting your point here. Do you mean by that, the code basically lacks focus on an end goal? Or are you talking about the fuzzyness and randomization of the output?

Right, fair point with the training data.

Thanks, I think your first point is a really valid one. AI technology is far from clean, especially in a political scope.

To your second point. I see that, but on the other hand, it makes an impression on me as if human code would be free of such errors. I would not put human code on an (implied) pedestal (especially not mine), but maybe I’m missing your point. I think being suspicious about AI code is good but same goes for human code. To me it sounds like nobody should ever trust AI code because there can or will be mistakes you can’t see, which is reasonably careful at best and paranoid at worst. At some point there is no difference anymore between “it looks fine” and “it is fine”.

I don’t see it as obfuscation if there is no underlying difference. Why treat working code differently depending on the source if what matters is that it works (which it does by definition). Of course there has to be more quality control if AI is able to produce more code, but I don’t think that’s the point here right? Why highlight the different sources of the code if, as you said, the code can speak for itself. What’s the difference to you if you can’t tell them apart?

Yup, single dev here, can confirm. I’m coding for a living but am mediocre at it since I jumped from civil engineering to something I kind of enjoy. To me coding assistants are a huge help. Finding solutions, discussing ideas, writing down implementation plans, can’t do all that stuff with my colleagues since they have no clue about my work.

Are you talking about his way of communicating or about his AI use? I think it could have been said a bit more level headed, but I mostly agree with what he’s said. I also see no issue with the part “good luck finding it then” that seems to sound malicious to you. To me this means “if you can’t find a difference in quality, your whole complaint is invalid because there basically is no difference in quality”. Yes, it’s still AI and should not be viewed as more than a knowledgeable intern, yada yada, but I hope the point comes across…

Few years ago I found medlars (German: Mispel) in my local grocery store. Had never seen them before. They look somewhat like apricots but taste like a mix of other fruits. Really tasty for a not so popular fruit. It’s cool to make such a discovery. :)

I love games that encourage me to do things unexpected instead of hitting me with a stick for not doing the expected.

That’s really nicely bringing it to a point.

I think I’m on a similar track. I kind of want to keep playing Hades but at some point doing it over and over again became a chore and I stopped playing although I really like the story and think it’s a really good game. And on the same level I keep procrastinating Elden Ring although it might really be enjoyable in some ways.