Ironically, GenAI had such a time with hands. What a better symbol to represent authenticity.

I’ve seen a lot of comparisons likening LLM code generation to how compilers and high level languages eventually removed the need for programmers to understand machine code. Arguments about determinism and code quality aside, I still think it’s a false equivalence. Even if LLMs produced beautiful, ideal code, they fundamentally remove a programmer’s understanding of what exactly is present in the logic. Mishaps are inevitable.

To prevent them, experienced programmers will do what it takes to produce human understanding and quality in spite of code generation. Yes, read the generated code. Yes, do code reviews with trusted peers. Yes, write/generate unit tests. There are even novel ideas about having LLMs interview us to make sure we understand the generated code’s purpose. That’s not the same as compilers, and it’s not the story AI companies have told us.

Just like in the beginning: Programming languages are made for programmers, not for machines. It’s on us to understand.

Let me explain, no there is to much, let me sum up: It’s a famous line from The Princess Bride.

Good luck with Iocaine

Junior and mid-level engineers will now require more senior engineers to sign off any AI-assisted changes, Treadwell added.

Do they have the option to reject changes they’re not professionally comfortable with?

The mental gymnastics with which they support the pdfile is down right Acrobatic.

‘Asking ones chat bot’ sounds so much less impressive than ‘leveraging AI’. Using the right language throws some cold water on the corporate narrative.

Pay the debt or be an expert novice, master of nothing.

Who doesn’t enjoy spam clicking to their birth year one month at a time?

The Force is strong with this one.

That much steel is worth a good bit.