| >because it's true I mean, it's just as true that most teams “write bad code,” “introduce bugs,” “create technical debt,” or something along those lines. There is this amazing thing that happens where when we talk about AI code, it's always compared against some idealized infinitely capable professional following every best practice, purposefully and carefully crafting every line. Which is fantasy. Most of you are creating absolute slop. That's just truth. Clutch your pearls and say it ain't true, but there's this weird reality that when people inherit other people's code, it's declared 100% slop, almost all of the time. It's the reason we are constantly tossing projects in the bin and starting anew. AI is absolutely imperfect, just like teams of human developers. >By then you have a blackbox of a codebase which is unmaintainable Have you ever used Claude Code to work on a project? In what reality is the code unmaintainable? How is it a "blackbox"? Are you getting it to write LLVM IR or something? In my experience, and with careful guidance and oversight, it makes spectacularly maintainable code. Better code than any human developer I have ever worked with. It helps to occasionally do cycles of refactoring as you've built out the foundation and the core becomes more evident and clear. >or in a worst case scenario you end up losing your data or get hacked or both This one is amazing. The industry is awash with garbage, insecure, exploited code. We were making that garbage code by the data centre full long before LLMs joined the scene. |