← Back to context

Comment by acedTrex

1 day ago

> Nothing to do with AI, or even the capabilities of AI. The person intentionally didn't put in much effort.

The part to do with AI is that it was not able to drive a comprehensive and bug free driver with minimal effort from the human.

That is the point.

5 comments

acedTrex

Reply
rayiner  1 day ago

Why is that the metric? In my job, I get drafts from junior employees that requires major revisions, often rewriting significant parts. It’s still faster to have someone take the first pass. Why can’t AI coding be used the same way? Especially if AIs are capable of following your own style and design choices, as well as testing code against a test suite, why isn’t it easier to start from a kind of working baseline than to rebuild from a raf h.

  • skydhash  10 hours ago

    Dis you hire juniors just to get drafts? That seems pretty inneficient.

    • rayiner  1 hour ago

      I'm a lawyer, so a bunch of work--factual analysis, legal research, etc.--goes into the draft that isn't just the words on the page. At the same time, the work product is meant to persuade human readers, so a lot of work goes into making the words on the page perfect. (Perhaps past the point of diminishing returns, but companies are willing to pay for that incremental edge when the stakes are high.)

      Programming is different in that you don't usually have senior engineers rewrite code written by junior engineers. On the other hand, look at how the Linux kernel is developed. You have Linus at the top, then subsystem maintainers vetting patches. The companies submitting patches presumably have layers of reviewers as well. Why couldn't you automate the lower layers of that process? Instead of having 5 junior people, maybe you have 2 somewhat more senior people leveraging AI.

      This is probably not sustainable unless the AI can eventually do the work the more senior people are doing. But that probably doesn't matter in the short term for the market.

      1 reply →