Upon reflection, I've come to believe that quality software is not about how many features something has or how quickly it is built but rather how cared for it is by the designers, developers, and product people who work on it. There's an ineffable aspect to my favorite pieces of software where I don't think of it is as feature matrix but rather as an interface made by a human for humans that's a joy to use. And when you build software with AI, it leads to worse software. Sure, it's faster to build initially, but I think to the detriment of the quality of the code and the user interface and the user experience.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 1 day ago (1 child)

Thanks for sharing this. Feels very similar to what I am going through as well. While our company does not enforce AI usage directly in the code department it is heavily used by other departments while the review burden still stays with code. It is egregiously painful to review AI generated code. The verbose, prosaic comments, justifications in comments where it failed to reflect coding standards and the smug faces of those throwing this slop at me is dehumanizing to be honest, at least highly disrespectful. I hate it and I don't want any part in it. It's a complete clown show.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm in a similar boat. It's crazy the comments. I'll review code and make suggestions, but it's for a coworker who has surrendered their critical thinking. I'll get back the next revision with yet more code comments explaining the changes "why they were necessary", context that literally does not matter. The code comments just are a chronological summary of the code review passes. I hate it.

    Yes I utilize AI for writing my own code as well, as a whole I feel it makes me slower but produce more durable output, unreasonably so. But durable in ways I don't think will matter, edge cases.

    Just the other day I had to explain to it why making a fundamental change to be protected in case a botnet with 600 thousand unique IP addresses hits the endpoint in a single minute was stupid. All of this to hedge against a scenario where an actor can exhaust the cache and evict other values.

    As if our infra can even tolerate that.

    I hope the bubble pops soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Personally, I have given up, and have decided to give to the c-suite exactly what they demand, to the letter. That ends up as a bunch of AI written code that looks like it does what it does, with tests written to the best of AI's ability, as fast as possible. I used to care deeply, and we were making strides climbing out of the tech debt that had been accumulating for years, but then AI came along and all hell broke loose.

    Our productivity goals are impossible. There's too much to actually review and figure out exactly what it does, so I just rubber stamp PRs as long as the tests look sane and are passing, and a once-over of the code doesn't look like anything obviously malicious. It's a gamble on several levels, but I've decided to care about code quality as much as the CEO does. The CTO just bailed out and they aren't bothering to replace them, which is telling. If they don't give a shit, why should I? They are already trying to push everyone out and replace them with AI anyway, so why not taste the results of the policy made by slop, for slop, sooner rather than later? Either way we're out of a job.

    After all, if this were a decade ago, they could have just hired a bunch of juniors and ended up with a bunch of spaghetti, basically roughly the same state as this AI code, and they still wouldn't blink an eye. So what does it matter?

    In the end, I see it as a wash. Either the models get better and can clean the mess up, or just figure things out and outright replace large swaths of nfg code all at once, so why do I care... Or the whole thing blows up, the costs are astronomical compared to just having humans do it, and we have jobs fixing the mess that AI left behind.

    Even if/when the AI bubble bursts though, Pandora's box has been opened. It's been demonstrated that machines can write some semblance of code that compiles and executes along the lines of what a product manager dictates to the machine, as long as they can describe it well enough. Doing so seems to have astronomical costs hidden at this time, so for a while it may be prohibitive to bring things back to today's scale. But it's only a matter of time before someone revives it, like Steve Jobs revived the Newton ala the iPhone.

  • source
  • parent