Thread

1. zug_zug · 1789908167 · focus · HN ↗

   I think this is a bit of a simplistic mental approach. I've certainly seen a lot of "The engineer owns the outcome, AI is just a tool, don't release anything you don't vouch for."

   However, I just don't think that's realistic. It's asking an author to suddenly become an editor. It's asking somebody who writes code to now read and debug others code.

   It can actually be harder to find the the bug in a tricky piece of code than it can be to write your own correct code from scratch. I see AI introduce all sorts of bugs all the time in my personal projects that I would never introduce, and would never think to test for, especially around anything graphical.

   1. sameerds · 1789915113 · focus · HN ↗

      > It's asking somebody who writes code to now read and debug others code.

      That's exactly right. Open source projects are currently drowning under LLM generated PRs, where those who used to write code are simply punting that work to AI, but still expecting others to review it. It's not okay to expect such a free lunch. If you moved the labour of writing code one step away, then you are yourself the first line of defence now, so you better start reviewing code that you claim to be yours.

      1. sfn42 · 1789991097 · focus · HN ↗

         That's what I do and expect my colleagues to do. Even before LLMs I was reviewing my own PRs before submitting them to others. I still do that. I work closely with Claude to create something good that I'm happy with, then I review it and test it to ensure it's good. And only then do I submit the PR to colleagues for final review.

         I expect the same from colleagues, I'm not interested in treating them as a middle man between me and Claude.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.