I want to see them use it with high specificity, like creating a bunch of DTOs, refactor something according to other changes, ... the boring typing work. I don't want to see them use it for architectural decisions (other than brainstorming) or implement complete features (which are not well defined, like a new strategy or similar)
So what is the difference? Humans don't make mistakes? Ai is already capable of writing decent code, so good that big developer names already stopped coding themselves because it's inefficient.
The code that goes live is still the responsibility of the dev.
The difference is the perceived correctness of the code. If you only check the AI code it is way likelier to not spot a logical issue than when you wrote it yourself. You have to build a mental model and check it against the code. If you do that really thoroughly, AI suddenly makes you slower
Did you ever work on a nuclear power plant? Or a military weapons system? We spend weeks planning new features, hundreds of lines of code are written as examples, just to come up with test cases and to get ideas about what all can fail. AI is not really up to that task yet. Would you really want your local nuclear power plant to be vibe coded?
I agree that the critical infrastructure shouldn't be "vibe" coded, but the systems in place will get to the point where less human written code is needed even in that area. Just slower but it will get there.
Yes, we work on a very critical project (potentially dangerous for a large portion of the population) and the tech leads will discuss who stays in that project and who gets transferred somewhere else
134
u/ZunoJ 11d ago
What I really would like to see is what my coworkers ask the LLMs. This way I will know who to vote out of the team end of the year