[kranner]

> The “creating” part of coding has very little to do with the code, in fact my perspective is that it’s the most insignificant part of creating software. At the end of the day, how code gets into a pr doesn’t matter. A human should be responsible to review, correct, and validate the code.

FWIW I find these statements trivializing of the craft and the passion. Some of us do like the craft of creating a massive structure that we understand from the pylons to the nuts and bolts. Reviewing AI-generated code doesn't bring us close to the understanding of the problem that comes from having solved the problem ourselves.

If this level of detail-orientation doesn't interest you, that's fine, and it perhaps shouldn't bother you to have someone say that? We can agree these are subjective values.

[stokedbits]

That’s fair and I do enjoy that part of it as well. It’s just that I think it’s trivial and I’ve been coding since about 7-8 years old and been in the industry professionally for over 20 years. My underlying point I left out is that I already understand most of the problems I’m trying to solve from a coding perspective.

I’d much rather get into the intricacies of the business use cases, game mechanics, architectural paradigms, than to focus on typing something I’ve done dozens of times before. I think that’s where I’m at with it.

[kranner]

> My underlying point I left out is that I already understand most of the problems I’m trying to solve from a coding perspective

OK, in that case you make a fair point. I'm not averse to the typing autocompletion either. But most of the work I've been involved with has been research-oriented where the AI's offer to help solve the problem is neither welcome nor useful. So it's a different orientation altogether.

[stokedbits]

Yeah totally fair. Good chat