It's just prompt engineering for coding. Let an AI dump a bunch of code for you, debug until it no longer errors, pull request and repeat next sprint.

5% of the time, it works every time

[–] troed@fedia.io 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Brought to you by (us) security researchers who will happily come in and sort out your security issues later. For a very hefty hourly fee.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

So I can do programming and find and fix bugs.
How do I go on to advertise myself to them as a security researcher and get that hefty hourly fees?

Problem is, I am not very good at ~~fooling people~~ marketing.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

who will happily come in and sort out your security issues later

I really doubt anybody will be happy about it, even after considering the size of the fees. And also, you have a very high estimation of the capacity of those people to notice they have to call you, I really doubt it's deserved.

[–] tfm 6 points 1 week ago

Deserved. These companies need to find it out the hard way.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago

The critical detail being that you don't actually know what's inside (and it's definitely bad). Just using LLM assistance for a your boilerplate code doesn't count.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is it truly a deviation from outsourcing code to a 3rd party?

[–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago

Yeah, because at least a decent 3rd party might hand you documentation and have the sense to build something consistent or maintainable. AI has a limited context scope and frequently suffers a type of short term memory loss that results in repeated work or variations in work that confuse the end result.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, unlike an outsourcing outfit an AI company won't take the fall when given shit requirement and shit pay they deliver shit work.