I was doing a code review this week. There was nothing wrong with the code in terms of structure or performance, but it was doing this really weird operation with an ID after DB insert. I asked about it and the author was like “yeah, that’s weird; I don’t know why the AI did that. I’ll remove it.” My dude, I know you can write good code. Don’t be lazy!
i dont understand that. i use ai for help reading through old stuff or to help me remember how tondo a thing i havent done in two years but blindly copy pasting blows my mind.
Same. I also code up about 50% of stuff so all the structure is there, effectively as guardrails, before using AI. Then prompting it instructions that are effectively the solution, so it doesn’t come up with its own.
Then, read through it all, replace things that could’ve been done better, and test.
On average it’s maybe 15-20% quicker than manually coding the whole lot. Try skip any of those steps and the chances of it blowing out increase to the point I just end up doing it all anyway and it’s taken twice as long because of it.
It’d be minimal since I’m doing all the hard work initially and feeding it logic to follow. I find open vibe coding does rip tokens and usually ends up with an overcomplicate mess. Many rabbit holes the AI creates and sends itself down, so a lot more unnecessary lines and often entire redundant blocks.
If someone’s going to do that, at the least break it up into sections to save tokens and time. But ideally, just get some coding experience under the belt of have a crack at it yourself first so it’s easy to identify the pitfalls and where clear instructions is needed.
I’ve been vibing a bit in my spare time, and in the beginning I didn’t look too much at the cost because I was more interested in quickly reaching some sort of mvp state but then I had to manually troubleshoot a thing and wow it was so full of hardcoded bullshit, which was so insanely far from how I was im envisioning it.
I had to backtrack a lot and then started doing like you and tell it what I wanted the code to look like.
I suspect it’s the same people that blindly copied stackoverflow code without understanding it. Which is likely where the LLMs are getting most of its answers from in the first place.
Yeah these interaction are becoming quite fraught because there is extreme danger of AI use just shifting the burden from one person to another. That guy wrote the code super fast with AI, but you had to do an additional round trip during code review with him to eliminate that weirdness. He gets a bonus for doing twice the work in half the time, you get nothing.
I worked with a guy that 100% used AI to dev everything. didn’t even check to see if it would work before submitting a MR.
It got to the point that I stopped reviewing them and just rejected them outright with a simple comment, “doesn’t work”.
eventually he was fired. the evidence? the four months of shitty MRs he opened. the best part was, when I said “doesn’t work”, I was never wrong. none of his changes worked.
I disagree on that; we lose the muscles we don’t use and I’ve already seen that happening. It’s also making people want to jump straight to implementation without proper design and I think that’s a recipe for trouble.
Again, cowboys have been skipping steps and doing things lazily and poorly well before AI. Everyone knows people who jump straight into an IDE instead of following proper workflows. Yes, skills you don’t practice take a hit. In a professional setting there is such a substantial productivity hit to avoid all AI use, compared to correct and proper use. It will soon be infeasible to take such at anti AI stance and remain in the industry
cowboys have been skipping steps and doing things lazily and poorly well before AI
Of course, but I think not understanding what they’re committing is more dangerous than before (even allowing for the classic “I copied and pasted this from xxxx site”). This is also true when people are fully trusting AI to review code as well.
We use AI for code reviews which I do find useful. It’s still wrong part of the time (sometimes ridiculously so). So far, it’s also failed to provide accurate documentation for various repos which seems like something rather basic. I’m not against all AI (though I do have ethical and environmental concerns with several of the commercial options). I will not have them write code for me, though.
As for the future, we’ll just have to wait and see. I’ve seen a lot of AI budgets exceeded and/or cut. I do think it’s not there yet for a number of tasks but is suitable (again minus certain concerns) for others.
Machines cannot take responsibility for problems, which is why I feel containment barriers cannot be entirely AI. AI reviews are fine (and catch a lot of wild issues humans miss) if a human genuinely reviews it too
I’ve lost count of how many snippets I’ve reviewed that were verbatim pasted from stack overflow pre-AI lol
My view is that humans produce a lot of garbage, and AI tooling currently amplifies your productivity. If you’re careless, don’t take pride and normally commit tech debt then with AI tooling that’s going to be amplified 10-100x. The more careless you are the faster you can commit more garbage - especially if you’re skipping on unit/integration/functional testing
I was doing a code review this week. There was nothing wrong with the code in terms of structure or performance, but it was doing this really weird operation with an ID after DB insert. I asked about it and the author was like “yeah, that’s weird; I don’t know why the AI did that. I’ll remove it.” My dude, I know you can write good code. Don’t be lazy!
i dont understand that. i use ai for help reading through old stuff or to help me remember how tondo a thing i havent done in two years but blindly copy pasting blows my mind.
Same. I also code up about 50% of stuff so all the structure is there, effectively as guardrails, before using AI. Then prompting it instructions that are effectively the solution, so it doesn’t come up with its own.
Then, read through it all, replace things that could’ve been done better, and test.
On average it’s maybe 15-20% quicker than manually coding the whole lot. Try skip any of those steps and the chances of it blowing out increase to the point I just end up doing it all anyway and it’s taken twice as long because of it.
It’s alarming when people don’t even check.
Out of interest, how much is this 15-20% increase in productivity costing in tokens?
It’d be minimal since I’m doing all the hard work initially and feeding it logic to follow. I find open vibe coding does rip tokens and usually ends up with an overcomplicate mess. Many rabbit holes the AI creates and sends itself down, so a lot more unnecessary lines and often entire redundant blocks.
If someone’s going to do that, at the least break it up into sections to save tokens and time. But ideally, just get some coding experience under the belt of have a crack at it yourself first so it’s easy to identify the pitfalls and where clear instructions is needed.
I’ve been vibing a bit in my spare time, and in the beginning I didn’t look too much at the cost because I was more interested in quickly reaching some sort of mvp state but then I had to manually troubleshoot a thing and wow it was so full of hardcoded bullshit, which was so insanely far from how I was im envisioning it.
I had to backtrack a lot and then started doing like you and tell it what I wanted the code to look like.
I suspect it’s the same people that blindly copied stackoverflow code without understanding it. Which is likely where the LLMs are getting most of its answers from in the first place.
and these people were always the majority.
so people saying that genai amplifies, they are correct, it amplifies the bullshit and the bad things.
there were always more mediocre and useless people that top performers.
it has been a miracle that anything has worked good enough so far.
Yeah these interaction are becoming quite fraught because there is extreme danger of AI use just shifting the burden from one person to another. That guy wrote the code super fast with AI, but you had to do an additional round trip during code review with him to eliminate that weirdness. He gets a bonus for doing twice the work in half the time, you get nothing.
blame your leadership
he’s not getting paid for good code
I worked with a guy that 100% used AI to dev everything. didn’t even check to see if it would work before submitting a MR.
It got to the point that I stopped reviewing them and just rejected them outright with a simple comment, “doesn’t work”.
eventually he was fired. the evidence? the four months of shitty MRs he opened. the best part was, when I said “doesn’t work”, I was never wrong. none of his changes worked.
So there was plenty wrong with the code.
And it hasn’t been fixed.
“Bro, its totally just you prompted it wrong”
The lazy part is not questioning the bullshit they noticed and did nothing about - not using the tool
I disagree on that; we lose the muscles we don’t use and I’ve already seen that happening. It’s also making people want to jump straight to implementation without proper design and I think that’s a recipe for trouble.
Again, cowboys have been skipping steps and doing things lazily and poorly well before AI. Everyone knows people who jump straight into an IDE instead of following proper workflows. Yes, skills you don’t practice take a hit. In a professional setting there is such a substantial productivity hit to avoid all AI use, compared to correct and proper use. It will soon be infeasible to take such at anti AI stance and remain in the industry
Of course, but I think not understanding what they’re committing is more dangerous than before (even allowing for the classic “I copied and pasted this from xxxx site”). This is also true when people are fully trusting AI to review code as well.
We use AI for code reviews which I do find useful. It’s still wrong part of the time (sometimes ridiculously so). So far, it’s also failed to provide accurate documentation for various repos which seems like something rather basic. I’m not against all AI (though I do have ethical and environmental concerns with several of the commercial options). I will not have them write code for me, though.
As for the future, we’ll just have to wait and see. I’ve seen a lot of AI budgets exceeded and/or cut. I do think it’s not there yet for a number of tasks but is suitable (again minus certain concerns) for others.
Holy shit.
What’s it going to tell you that a static analysis tool wouldn’t? (And we all know what a hell of false positives you get into with those).
Machines cannot take responsibility for problems, which is why I feel containment barriers cannot be entirely AI. AI reviews are fine (and catch a lot of wild issues humans miss) if a human genuinely reviews it too
I’ve lost count of how many snippets I’ve reviewed that were verbatim pasted from stack overflow pre-AI lol
My view is that humans produce a lot of garbage, and AI tooling currently amplifies your productivity. If you’re careless, don’t take pride and normally commit tech debt then with AI tooling that’s going to be amplified 10-100x. The more careless you are the faster you can commit more garbage - especially if you’re skipping on unit/integration/functional testing