[dpark]

> It's de-personalized

I had an interesting conversation with a junior engineer who made this observation. She shipped a feature, we gathered data, and based on data we pivoted to a different design. She called out that she wasn’t attached to the code because AI wrote it. Not that she didn’t care about quality or effectiveness of the product, but the personal emotional attachment to the code itself was not there. Probably a healthy thing. I’ve seen senior engineers defend mediocre code because they wrote it and changing it was an ego hit.

[supern0va]

I have to admit that I'm curious why this is the case. I almost wonder if the pseudo-anthropomorphizing of these models is partially what helps here, similar to how I don't take it personally when I give instructions to a junior engineer and they fuck it up (though, I probably should to at least some degree more than I do).

[dpark]

Probably something about the personal time and effort invested in a thing. I would feel much less personally invested if, for example, I created an outline of a story and then paid a ghostwriter to fill it in.

[ed_mercer]

So then, why have the junior engineer in the first place?

[supern0va]

The same reason we had them before? A few juniors can be productive with oversight and guidance. Half the battle is learning what good work looks like, and figuring out what it is that you should even really be building, and those are skills you develop.

[dpark]

This feels like you just have that retort in your pocket waiting to use it because it didn’t seem relevant here.

What does this even mean? Why have the junior engineer if they aren’t irrationally invested in the code the write?