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. Daishiman · 1789961260 · focus · HN ↗

      > 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.

      This is referred to in the need for E2E testing and E2E testing not being a substitute.

      Code review is definitely the biggest challenge of AI-driven development IMO. I still have not found good processes that work in my org, but for my personal work I independently reached the author's conclusions a while ago and am very satisfied with the results.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.