| > Over the past six months, there hasn’t been a single day where I’ve checked the HN Best RSS feed without seeing a post about how AI “writes bad code,” “introduces bugs,” “creates technical debt,” or something along those lines. > I’ll probably make a lot of enemies by saying this, but do people realize that code is just a means to an end? That’s literally the point. Those are all defects relative go the end served by code. > Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works. Code with bugs does not work. As you note, that is quite relevant to user’s concerns. > Let’s face it: by the time I manually ship version 1.0 of a product, the AI-assisted version could have been deployed 10x faster. We’re actually pretty much past the point where whether or not to use AI assistance at all is the issue usually being considered, the exact manner in which AI assistance is used is more likely to be the issue of concern, and the manners in which AI fails is quite relevant to that. The anti-AI crowd doesn't care if AI creates bugs, they hate AI for being AI. It’s the people trying to find the best way to use AI that care that—and under what circumstances—AI is prone to create bugs. > At some point, execution speed starts to matter more than the elegance of the code. At most one of the categories of issues you complained about relate to elegance of code, and that only is one possible sense of that category. |