[sdesol]

> Nobody wonders out loud how a senior developer arrives at the result he does without an AI; they care that his deliverable is high quality and meets whatever standard/requirement exists.

I think the issue that many may not want to think about is, how do we promote/reward/fire developers in the AI assisted programming age. As part of code reviews, I think it will be second nature to ask "how did you arrive at the code".

[t-writescode]

Can’t wait to get in trouble for having curse words in my chat with AI get flagged by the company’s anti-swearing-in-code automation.

[sdesol]

I think it makes no sense to share the conversation but I do think developers will be required to provide lessons, notes and checkpoints in the conversation.

What I think will happen is you will be required to run the conversation through a company required prompt that will include things like, does the conversation contain "think harder" without providing any guidance for how to correct things.

Basically, did the developer treat the conversation like a literal slot machine.

[skydhash]

> I think it will be second nature to ask "how did you arrive at the code".

What about “Do you understand the code well enough to argue about it, its past, and possible evolution paths”?

[sdesol]

I think that would be implied by "how did you arrive at the code". I think the conversation will revove around how did you "guide" things.

[skydhash]

Not really, I don't think I've ever care about the how. I want to mostly know the trigger of a change (a bug, possible feature, or just tidying) and what are the impacts if that changes is included in the codebase. That is often just a paragraph or two.

The workflow is mostly worthless, unless it can generalize and evolve into a process. And that is more worthy of a blog post or a presentation.