In my experience, it's usually good for finding out the bugs, but I take the fixes it provides with a grain of salt. There were numerous times where the fix could have lead to some more serious bugs because of some business logic special case scenarios that it didn't understand.

Yeah, I'm seeing this at work too. It's capable of adjusting behavior to meet some narrow success criteria, but it can easily introduce bigger problems in the process in large coupled code bases, which it doesn't catch on its own. Automated tests help a bit, but I find I still have to steer it very strongly at work.

The trick is to take a step back every time you think you need to steer and figure out what tools the model had to have to figure this out themselves.

If there are couplings to other systems that are invisible to the model in certain situations, then you should make those visible to it!

You cannot tell me that letting anyone do something for you does not affect the skills that you outsourced, unless you are some sort of a superhuman.

As an example, I have been drawing portraits for quite a few years now, and whenever I go on a hiatus and come back after a few months, I can notice my skill not being anywhere close to where it was before I stopped using it.

Sure, after 2 or 3 portraits they mostly come back because of the previous experience, but skill rust is a real thing, and if you think your coding skills are the same because you used to code 20 years but haven't coded for some time, you are probably just lying to yourself.

Yeah he’s living in denial.

His skills are slowly eroding. Given that he spent 20 yrs building it up it won’t happen overnight. But the trade off is happening in real time.

My "digging for roots to eat" skills have also atrophied. Fortunately I don't need those much anymore because of modern agriculture.

I wonder how much of this "you are gonna lose your skills!" stuff matters. And if knowing how to properly iterate a for loop with my eyes closed matters all that much anymore.

Aren't we all unique? A person is not just a mish mash of his career and hobbies.

How do you know what good output should look like with little code experience?

Yes but currently I don't know of a single company in my area that doesn't make you use AI daily because of the supposedly increased productivity. That means that juniors also absolutely have to use AI, probably sabotaging their learning process in the long run.

Here's a great one: https://pikuma.com/courses/cpp-2d-game-engine-development

What stops a small, or even a large group of people to intentionally "poison" the LLMs for everyone? Seems to me that they are very fragile, and that an attack like that could cost AI companies a lot. How are they defending themselves from such attacks?

This is already a thing: https://www.scworld.com/brief/poison-fountain-initiative-aim...

We'll see if they succeed.

I think it might be too late.

The instances should be based on the context. For example we had a few different API providers for the same thing, and someone refactored the separate classes into a single one that treats all of the APIs the same.

Well, turns out that 3 of the APIs changed the way they return the data, so instead of separating the logic, someone kept adding a bunch of if statements into a single function in order to avoid repeating the code in multiple places. It was a nightmare to maintain and I ended up completely refactoring it, and even tho some of the code was repeated, it was much easier to maintain and accommodate to the API changes.