[qazxcvbnmlp]

"I don't know Claude did that" isn't a bad thing in and of itself... If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value than someone who cares about reading every line of code.

[torben-friis]

Any situation where you’re submitting under your signature code to production without knowing what it does should be at the very least cause for a talk.

I’m kinda shocked that this even has to be said.

[behringer]

The policeman says to the judge, on the stand "I don't know why my sworn affidavit says that, your honor. But I can write twice as many affidavits now so it's all for the best."

[rapind]

> If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value.

This is the future fellow greybeards. We will be shunned for being try-hards, and when it turns out we were right?... Well no one likes a know it all.

[AndrewDucker]

If you "don't know" then how could you have "easily verified it was correct"?

[johntash]

I think they were claiming claude easily verified it? i.e. they have total faith in claude to not mess up

[AndrewDucker]

That's an interesting claim. I wonder how they would come to believe that.

[Vegenoid]

If it’s easily verified as correct, then you should have verified its correctness before bringing it to someone more senior and asking for their help, and so you should be able to explain why it is there when they ask.

[ponector]

If you don't understand you code how you can be sure it's correct? You actually are pushing it into your colleagues who will verify and fix the code later.

[rafaelero]

To be fair, even if you understand it that's doesn't mean it will work well.

[TeMPOraL]

Testing.

The only thing that changed with AI is that the narrative went from "you can't always know perfectly what every part of the program does" to "don't even try".

[9dev]

But the LLM writes the tests too. Probably even made some private methods public so it can test them, because you asked it to write a comprehensive test suite. It’s a beautiful self-jerk circle of shitty code based on wrong assumptions proven by correct tests testing shitty code based on wrong assumptions…

[johntash]

Or the wonderful loop of "These test steps are still failing, let's try something simpler and remove the failing tests. Great! The tests are passing now!"

[ponector]

Sad reality is test engineers headcount over last years was cut even more than developers. Most companies see testing as obstacle and unnecessary costs and has no will to invest into testing.

[oblio]

You, sir, have "executive" written all over you.

[jalapenos]

Savage

[jalapenos]

Why do we need them then? If they're some dumb passthrough I can just replace them with a background agent