There should be a LINE 5 … random low paid office person with no engineering experience or knowledge using AI because the company doesn’t want to pay an actual engineer, they just want to get the contract and get anyone to engineer the work using a high paid version of whatever corporate AI service

In my experience, with the programming work I’ve done. AI makes the process slower. I can see in some more repetative fields, the LLMs ability to write syntax may be useful. But all the times I’ve used it, it seemed to be nothing but an anchor that was constantly complimenting me.

I have had limited use in having LLMs mine data sets for contextual bits, and it was pretty decent at that. And light weight models are great for natural language interfaces, but as far as engineering goes, AI is pretty much a none starter at this point, and I think the quickly degrading quality of most software is a sign of that.

I would still take row 3 over row 2 any day of the week.

Also, rule 4?

The irony of using AI for development is that in order for it to add any value whatsoever, you have to do the work you should have done to begin with. Things like defining code standards and leveraging reusable templates. Stuff that management previously thought was a waste of time is now somehow urgent.

Pretty dangerous posting facts like this in an anti AI echo chamber my guy

Missing the brain leaking out of row 2’s head.

Line two is wrong, it would take longer because of all the fuck ups the AI makes that need correcting.

Credit?