That workflow just sounds exhausting to me. Would I always need to consider how much of a blast radius my AI-generated code might have? Sounds like there’s so much extra management going into these micro decisions that it ultimately defeats the purpose of generating code altogether.
replyI could see value in using it during the prototyping phase, but wouldn’t like to work like you described for a serious project for end users.
And you have discovered the job of managers! There has always been a lot of hate for managers. Wonder if the robots hate us just as much? (I often feel a weird guilt when I tell an agent to do something I know I am going to throw away but will serve as an interesting exploration...I know if I did that to a human they would be pissed...)
replyIMO the hate has always been for clueless managers, especially clueless yet demanding managers. Managing an LLM for coding is different, try being clueless and demanding and see how far you get.
reply> I know if I did that to a human they would be pissed
replyYou call it a hackathon. You tell the human to stay up the whole night. In exchange for the extra hours worked you provide some pizza.
I just don't like to type code anymore. If I can accomplish the same by describing the code, and get the same results as if I typed it myself, I'll opt for not typing so damn much. I've done so much typing in my career, that typing ~80% less to get the same results, makes a pretty big difference in how likely I am to set out to accomplish something.
replyI care more about code quality now, because typing no longer limits if I feel like it's worth to refactor something or not.
> treating AI code generated as immediately legacy, with tight encapsulation boundaries, well-defined interfaces etc.
replyThis is good advice regardless whether you're using AI or not, yet in real life "let's have well-defined boundaries and interfaces" always loses against "let's keep having meetings for years and then ducttape whatever works once the situation gets urgent".