> less than a decade experience.
Yeah, obviously I have less than a decade of experience, and the thing is I can't see how I progress. It's like AI upgrades people even if they are bad, so I don't know if I'm really good or becoming better or it's just AI. I'm practicing for a competition, they said we can use any AI we want. Later we had to use Gemma 3 and oh god, the scores lowered very, very much. The thing is I knew that I'd run into problems without AI, and since using it I forgot what I learnt, from important abstract and theoretical concepts to boilerplate code. But others were using it and our progress was monitored in time-limited competitions, and AI was really good at speeding us up so if you didn't use it you'd be the last person all the time.
I use coding assistants about 7 hrs a day in fields I know backwards and forwards and fields I know not at all.
Ai does NOT do better than a reasonable person. It gets about 80% of the way most of the time. And totally wrong and broken sometimes.
It just writes 10x faster. Once testing, bug fixing, testing again, and manually fixing the occasional huge fuck up im about 5x faster than I was. Things would be even better if I was a better programmer to begin with.
> Ai does NOT do better than a reasonable person. It gets about 80% of the way most of the time. And totally wrong and broken sometimes.
I agree, but you're talking about something you're clearly very competent in. That doesn't mean AI isn't as good as a relatively junior engineer.
It also says nothing about AIs of the future. 2 years ago AI could hardly do any tasks without a huge amount of human assistance. Now most SWE will tell you they don't even write code anymore. Let's give it another 2 years.