[chrischen]

I don't understand why people take bad coding practices and just let AI run with it and then expect nothing but poor quality code. Nothing about the AI revolution here changes how good software has always been written. Write tests, use a typed language, review code. If you have good patterns, good procedures, AI fits right in and fills in the blanks perfectly. Poor AI results tend to be the pot calling the kettle black.

[righthand]

I think bad practices will always be around as most code on Guthub was probably written with bad practices. The well is poisoned.

[rhetocj23]

Out of curiosity, how do you think the model producers will/would attempt to discern what information on the web is of high quality vs not so high quality (i.e. poisonous)? Akin to clean/drinkable water vs dirty water/harmful water in the well.

[righthand]

I don’t think they will. The well will always have some level of poison if all information has bias and intent. Bad software design is bad grammar, it’s ubiquitous.

[rhetocj23]

The real problem is the quality of knowledge and education of engineers. No amount of AI fixes that (until you complete displace labour as an input that is).

[dweinus]

I mean, it sounds like reviews and tests are already their standard practice, and explicitly part of their AI practice. So it should have worked, right?