[sgk284]

Can you say more? I see a lot of teams struggling with getting AI to work for them. A lot of folks expect it to be a little more magical and "free" than it actually is. So this post is just me sharing what works well for us on a very seasoned eng team.

[imron]

As someone who struggles to realise productivity gains with AI (see recent comment history) I appreciate the article.

100% coverage for AI generated code is a very different value proposition than 100% coverage for human generated code (for the reasons outlined in the article).

[justatdotin]

it is MUCH easier for solo devs to get agents to work for them than it is for teams to get agents to work for them.

[andrekandre]

that's interesting, whats the reason for that?

[justatdotin]

Hi, the reason I have this expectation is that on a (cognitively) diverse team there will be a range of reactions that all need to be accommodated.

some (many?) devs don't want agents. Either because the agent takes away the 'fun' part of their work, or because they don't trust the agent, or because they truly do not find a use for it in their process.

I remember being on teams which only remained functional because two devs tried very hard to stay out of one another's way. Nothing wrong with either of them, their approach to the work was just not very compatible.

In the same way, I expect diverse teams to struggle with finding a mode of adoption that does not negatively impact on the existing styles of some members.

[andrekandre]

thanks for the reply, thats interesting

i was thinking it was more like llms when used personally can make huge refactorings and code changes that you review yourself and just check it in, but with a team its harder to make sweeping changes that an llm might make more possible cause now everyone's changes start to conflict... but i guess thats not much of an issue in practice?

[justatdotin]

oh yeah well that's an extreme example of how one dev's use could overwhelm a team's capacity.