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. zahlman · 1789984121 · focus · HN ↗

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

      Writing code has always involved reading and debugging your own code, at an absolute minimum, even if you did everything solo. In any remotely serious collaborative effort, it also involved code review and collaborative debugging; people use issue trackers and assign themselves and each other "tickets", which often involve fixing issues that are ultimately caused by someone else's 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.

      Part of the point is to reject tricky code exactly because it is tricky (as this is rarely actually necessary).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.