• Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it before or after it has been merged.

    • audaxdreik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s a sensible stance and I don’t disagree in principle, the problem is that I feel there are too few people that fall into that camp and a fair amount of them have had their brains absolutely cooked and believe they do, while they absolutely do not.

      Of course I don’t have any real data to back those assumptions up, it’s not the kind of thing you’re going to get solid data on, mostly just observations. I’d like to think the Linux kernel devs are a cut above, but given the state of things my faith is in the gutter.

    • Toga77@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      So your stance is “trust without verification”.

      This will be fun when it inevitably blows up in all of our faces.

      AI literally atrophies your brain.

      Linus Torvalds ego has betrayed him, no one is perfect.

      • alottafagina@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it

        So your stance is “trust without verification”.

        I’m curious how you came to this conclusion

      • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        So your stance is “trust without verification”.

        No. The reviewer is going to ask the submitter questions about the code and the submitter needs to be able to answer them in a way the reviewer is comfortable seeing it merged.