[–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

His experiences reveal a pattern: AI can rapidly produce 70% of a solution, but that final 30% – edge cases, security, production integration – remains as challenging as ever. Meanwhile, trust in AI-generated code is declining even as adoption increases.

I'm very much intrigued by this contradiction where where adoption of AI is increasing, but the trust in the code it generates is declining. Is it a case of the more developers use AI coding tools, the more they become aware of the shortcomings and problems?

  • source
  • [–] [S] 2 points 9 months ago

    I know what you mean. Quite often when I've worked in a project where there is a pull request template, a lot of the time people don't bother to fill it out. However, in an ideal world, people would be proud of the work that they've delivered, and take the time to describe the changes when raising a pull request.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm confused why people are voting down an article about AI in an AI community, discussing small language models, which are much better in terms of energy consumption and the environment.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago

    I stumbled upon this article after reviewing a pull request, where someone was unit testing the abstract base class. I'm of the opinion that base classes should not be tested. We don't want to be testing the architecture of an application, we want to be testing the behaviour. The author sums this up nicely with this point:

    For tests, though, it shouldn’t matter whether the classes under test share the domain logic or duplicate it. Tests should view all production code as a black box, and approach verifying it with a blank slate. Otherwise, such tests will start couple to the code’s implementation details.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 3 points 9 months ago

    I also make use of ‘⚠’ to mark significant/blocking comments and bullet points. Other labels, like or similar to conventional comment prefixes, like “thought:” or “note:”, can indicate other priorities and significance of comments.

    Thank you for introducing me to conventional comments! I hadn't heard of them before, and I can see how they'd be really useful, particularly in a neurodiverse team.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›