[great_psy]

Problem is that it does not produce better or more work, it actually shifts the work to a different/future engineer. Today’s slop which gets engineer 1 a promotion, is engineer’s 2 problem next month when they are oncall and the codebase makes no sense.

Your horse riding analogy, is like riding a horse into battle without your weapon because it’s slowing you down. Sure you got through the enemy first by outmanoeuvring, but you missed the point all together. Maybe you got a shiny medal but all your mates are dead.

[zkmon]

That's a very good revert on horse-riding analogy. But you might still be making an assumption that the horse package doesn't come with a weapon. It might boil down to saying "AI can not achieve the skills of a senior engineer" - which might not have a strong basis.

[great_psy]

My view is that ai makes it very easy to pump out a lot of code, and that makes it too time consuming to just merge it without understanding it 100%.

The person pushing the PR is getting promoted because their are delivering so mane features, but after some time the codebase is a mess.

Sure the same person might end up dealing with some of the cleaning up, but more likely those refactoring tasks end up getting spread across the team as the need arises.

People are incentivized to push out code, which under human-written coding standard usually meant a level of pro-efficiency, so they should be rewarded.

But with the new model of pushing out code with ai, a better metric of a good engineer that should be promoted would be lines deleted, or something like that. Much harder to measure, and hard to justify to management.