[svennek]

I would prefer the one who refuses to use AI. Chances are that that developer will be less intellectually lazy.

I have played around with chatgpt and coding (I even have the paid version), but I fail to see it used as anything else than a brainstorming tool (at least right now). It writes code, that is often wrong and even if right it has the quality of a very new junior developer.

But again, I also don't like IDEs (and use "unix is my IDE"), so it might just be personal preference...

[jstx1]

> I would prefer the one who refuses to use AI. Chances are that that developer will be less intellectually lazy.

In my experience it's the other way around - the people who don't use AI assistance are much more likely to be the intellectually lazy type. They have either some ideological block, or they don't know how to use it effectively, or they're barely even aware of what's possible.

The people who do use AI assitance (at least the ones I've worked with) are pragmatic types who keep up with the latest developments in the field want to do the best possible job they can do in the most efficient way - and there's a visible difference in people's work performance. It would be really weird and counterproductive to disqualify someone from a job for this.

[hatchoo]

Same here. I would prefer someone who uses any / all tools at their disposal to accomplish the objectives. I also do recognize that there is a chance that someone blindly using generated code (the new version of copy/pasting from StackOverflow). The results of those will surface at some point or the other.

[svennek]

I would say it depends on what you put into the word "refuse". If the person was blindly refusing it, they are likely not good. But I do refuse it after careful consideration (100+ hours of actual experimentation)...

As said, as a brainstorming tool, I find it kinda valuable as a code-helping tool, not really..