[sanderjd]

Yeah the "check the work" thing is key. I think the reason these work so well as coding assistants is that we already have really mature tools for checking the work: compilers, static analyzers, test suites, etc.

It's not like writing a history paper where you can write "Napoleon was a French general who conquered Europe in 1987" and just be wrong in a way that requires cross-checking facts. Computers are less forgiving of things that are wrong.

But I do feel like I see incorrect documentation proliferating a bit more, and I'm curious whether we'll see an up-tick in more subtle bugs that is wrong but not so wrong that it is rejected early on. I haven't personally seen that in my work yet. I do also see more code that I don't like during code reviews, that I'm sure was spat out by an AI, but often I conclude that my preference isn't really "right" or even better, but just a preference that doesn't really matter.