[jf22]

Yes, I do.

You didn't challenge, you insulted.

You can ask how they ensure quality, what the review process is like, what QA is like, how do humans keep up with that pace of change, etc.

[BugheadTorpeda6]

In this case, it deserves an insult. The answer to all of those hypotheticals is "you don't, it's impossible". Please, go ahead and tell us how you ensure all of those things. I would very much like to hear what you have to say because it will be groundbreaking for the whole industry, clearly. You have found the golden goose.

[joshstrange]

>>> 200k lines of code per week

>> Do you seriously think that someone can write/review/maintain that?

> Yes, I do.

Then we have nothing more to discuss. If someone says "I can fly by flapping my arms" and I can absolutely say "That's absurd", I'm not going to respond with "What technique do you use? How can you do that?" because it's patently absurd. I'm not going to engage, I'm going to call out what is a lie or someone who has deluded themselves into thinking they are actually creating something of value.

[jf22]

Framing being productive with AI code gen as being similar to a physically impossible process is as bad faith as you can get.

[judahmeek]

No, claims made without supporting evidence are as bad faith as it gets.

Claims regarding productivity gains would require long-term studies involving multiple metrics to be credible.

Until those exist, the benefits of AI code gen are basically as credible as MAHA pseudoscience.

[jf22]

>claims made without supporting evidence are as bad faith as it gets.

People are sharing their experiences. Every comment on the internet doesn't have to have scientific rigor behind.

I just want to point out you've insulted, made absurd comparisons, and now raised to goalposts to an impossible level. The cope about AI is real.