[vouaobrasil]

> Isnt this what code reviews are for?

There is no substitute to doing something correctly in the first place. The problem is that in the real world, deadlines and lack of time will always cause the default solution to be accepted a small percentage of time even when it is not ideal. The increasing creep of AI will only exacerbate that and most technophiles will default into thinking of a new and improved AI tool to help with the problem, until it will be AI tools all the way down.

No thanks.

[CuriouslyC]

I would agree with there being no substitute for doing something correctly the first place, but I would argue that in this case the "first place" is hiring/training better so your employees don't try to throw unrefined AI shit at the walls, but instead take the output of AI and hone it before creating a PR.

If you have an engineering culture that doesn't emphasize thorough code review (at least of juniors, leads and architects emergency-pushing is a different story) that's a problem. In addition to catching bugs, that's a major vector for passing on knowledge.

[vouaobrasil]

I agree with you, no doubt there. But still, technology often offers the path of least resistance. So even if you want to hire better people, what of all the people who will grow up training themselves with Copilot? Yes, you can filter them out but it will be harder and harder to find good people. And then, companies will want to go after the bottom line: what if they can get a bigger and more complex product out there with AI assistance but with code that is more unreliable in the long term?

I tell you, it's spiralling out of control. Besides, even if you're doing the hiring, you may not have control if there is a profit motive. Us technical people cannot control the race to the bottom line, especially over the period of decades.