Working software developers of the Fedi, what's your relationship with AI coding (like Claude Code)?
| Don't like it. I don't use it for work. | |
| Don't like it. I have to use it for work. | |
| It's complicated. I don't use it for work. | |
| It's complicated. I have to use it for work. | |
| It's complicated. I happily use it for work. | |
| I like it. I don't use it for work. | |
| I like it. I have to use it for work. | |
| I like it. I happily use it for work. | |
| Other, comment below. |
@mayintoronto My relationship with those tools is complex.
Whomever uses them is accountable for every character that’s written. After all, it’s the user’s identity that’s tied to the code, not the genAI’s.
@mayintoronto It’s indeed weird.
It comes from the reality that as an operator, you need to understand what your tool does and what results it provides.
And a user should also have ecological and ethical accountability for its use.
@mayintoronto @EdwinG I tend to agree with Edwin. The commit/PR is under a single person’s name.
So if you push garbage, generated by Ai or not, it’s on you.
If you push code and lines you don’t understand, it’s on you. And that happened with slack overflow copy pasting before too.
@jerome @mayintoronto Where I work, PRs are usually in multiple names.
Those that review and approve also have their name on it and are also accountable - albeit differently.
May Likes Toronto
Edwin G. 
Jérôme
Simon Brooke