His concern is simple: If AI increases code volume by 10x, human review becomes a fatal bottleneck. He predicts technical debt will explode because humans can’t mentally verify that much logic that quickly. My concern is as competitors,clients, etc are able to release code quickly then we need to be faster on our product - clients expectations are increasing.
How do handle this? I know one option is to slow down releases but is there any other approaches people are taking.
If the human is the bottleneck the logical step is to use a different AI to review the code produced by the original AI. You can even use two different AIs to review the code generated by the first one and accept the code if both agree it does not have bugs. I doubt this will guarantee a high quality product, but it is the solution to doing all your code with AI.
The prudent choice would be to push any generated code to production only after it was tested and reviewed by an experienced human programmer.
I work at a security focused company, top in the entire industry, and blaming AI is not allowed. We use AI, even integrated inside our product, but we aren't ignorant. AI can and will write bad and broken code.
Stop caring what the code looks like, and start caring about what the code does.
qubex•4w ago
gus_massa•4w ago
qubex•4w ago
gus_massa•4w ago
A few month ago I wanted to do a short pause in Chez Scheme. I use mostly Racket, that is very similar, but there a a few differences here and there. I wanted to send a bug report about a program that entered an infinite loop. Without the pause the example just printed a lot of "" and the screen got intermediately full. With a short pause it was possible to read the debug message just above the "********..." and hit ^C to take a deeper look.
I went to Google, expecting to go to SO (is EE still online?), but Gemini gave me the answer. There is no builtin easy "pause", so I had to create a time period of 1 seconds and then use another instruction to wait for that period.
Me>
https://www.google.com/search?q=pause+1+second+chez+scheme*Gemini> (sleep (make-time 'time-duration 0 1))
I think they had arguments in the wrong order, it looks like it's fixed now, perhaps it was wrong only in my mind because I expected the other order. I looked at the online docs https://cisco.github.io/ChezScheme/csug/system.html#./system... . Fixed the example and adjusted the duration. (I initially used 1 second, but it's boring and it looks like the program hanged. .01 is too fast, probably .1 or .2 is the best, I don't remember the exact details.)
---
Back to your question:
I consider that totally professional and moral.