this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
235 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
85746 readers
3664 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
That's a career-limiting move where I work. I draw a hard line on that. You don't get many chances to blow up prod because you left out mandatory process steps. You might not get sacked the first time (though you should), but it if happens again, you'd better be contemplating your future life as a barista, or pounding farts out of shirt-tails in a steam laundry.
Where I work AI is being pushed hard, but the company has made it their policy that there must be a human in the loop. Ownership of the code written by AI is down to the person using the AI. "Oops, don't know why the AI wrote that!" Is not a valid answer to bugs being introduced into production.
I'm seeing senior engineers of 15+ years no longer writing code and churning out a ton more work. They are disappointed they don't write code anymore but working with the AI is the job they have to do to be able to afford to live. They say the cognitive load has shot up for them, they are constantly spinning plates.
To make the plate spinning job easier they have implemented guard rails to ensure the agents don't do anything stupid. I'm seeing a number of stories posted to Lemmy where the AI does dumb shit but the stories don't apply any accountability to the developers using it.
Hahaha either we work at the same place or it's identical across the industry
This kind of reasoning applies to every new tool. 20 years ago I was saying the same thing about work from co-workers who started programming on Java and didn’t understand what their beloved HashMap actually does under the hood.
Eventually we adapt to either the new tools or to the new dangers, the ones who don’t just become fossils.
IDK, cobol programmers still do well these days
Another option is to stop using new tools and frameworks that don't benefit us. Adoption should be based on a good cost/benefit ratio, not treated as an inevitability.
It's also good to re-examine old choices and shitcan them when they're no longer earning their keep. We were using NiFi for something non-core that we do, and replacing it with a simple hand-coded solution gave us a massive performance bump that's more maintainable as well. Our use case was well outside NiFi's sweet spot, so we shouldn't have used it in the first place. But the person who made that decision is long gone, and it's always someone else who ends up having to clean up those messes. Here's hoping that someday I find that guy in a dark alley with no camera coverage.