all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 4 days ago (1 child)

I feel the Team Fabric point so strongly. My team has gone from 2 reviewers per PR, to now 1, and open conversations about going to 0 with only AI review.

Feels less like a team every day, and more like a room of individuals, with less and less understanding and insight into what others are doing. Everyone is carving out their own kingdoms in the repo, that only they and their agent understand and can operate on, with internal patterns and designs.

Do we not see how big a risk this is if anyone leaves? Code review was for finding issues for sure, but for me that is at most half the purpose. The other purpose is driving consistency across the codebase, and disseminating knowledge amongst the team.

I feel that despite the stereotype of software engineers as loners, a lot of people I've worked with are deeply collaborative, and this is fuel on the burnout fire.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    My honest, biggest, fear is that AI coding does not, in the long run, drive up bugs and security issues. That is the only tangible piece of data we have to point to as a counter argument to this tool. If not for that businesses will not care about consistency, only that the agents can read and understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    The sad thing is that AI coding does not have to be done sloppily, but somehow, corporate leadership has pushed us in this direction. They wanted some wins to report to wall street, and they had to sacrifice software quality.

    The quality bar for software has been greatly reduced across the board, and normalized slop even outside of the corporate world and into open source software.

    I wish for a world where AI coding capabilities still existed, but we did not tolerate slop as a society.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    It really is a very visible demonstration of human faultiness.

    A reasonable engineering approach would have been an interesting new technology with open discussion and assessment and expansion of exploration. Instead, we get hype cycles and hyperbole claims and lies primarily driven and publicized and repeated as market marketing and investor marketing and an industry driven by money and investment rather than technology and reasonably explorative and increasing usage.

    It's sad and tragic. But not surprising. It's a consequence of human psyche, social constructs and market and society system structure.

    When I hear my colleague does a presentation differently for internal towards developers with more reasonable AI takes and a different one for external which basically practically joins the AI hype instead of voicing boundaries, it's pretty sad that it can't be honest communication throughout and be understood as such.

    I don't see it as an isolated fault of "corporate leadership" as in of development factories/teams. It's a broad issue, from the AI companies, press hype, industry hype, to then corporate and broader industry leadership eating it up and implementing and expecting marketing and hype claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    It's crazy how little we as coworkers ask each other for help now. It used to be nearly daily for my team, could last 2 minutes or 2 hours but it was always an interesting moment

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    My colleague who didn't ask nor describe his changes now generates descriptions and code comments through AI and it doesn't improve anything. It's verbose, imprecise, confusing, and irritating.

    I wonder if and how much communication reduced with my other colleagues. I guess probably a bit where they now ask AI (first). But not significantly, in my team, luckily. We still regularly talk. But maybe it's on a path of reduction right now. I would find it sad and bad as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    Oh yea I see what you're talking about. Some of my colleagues used to do that, then we decided together to forbid it. If we review or reply to someone else's code it's as a human. Sure an Ai can have an automatic review pass, but the human pass stays human

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    If I was a betting man I would say that security engineering is going to see a spike in demand in the next few years as a by-product of this.

    But that's probably cope.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago*

    It's definitely cope, because in a few years, all the capabilities of AI coding and security will have advanced. Heck, just 3 years ago, plenty of programmers were saying AI was so bad that people had no reason to worry about it taking their jobs. Four years ago, programmers were openly laughing about AI being useless and was never going to be widely used.

    And now here we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    And yet, the latest generation of models is surprisingly underwhelming.

    Hard disagree. The latest generation (Astra 6/Opus 5.5) is the first one that doesn't produce slop IMO. They basically fixed Claudish, the code quality (at least in Rust) is close to what I would write most of the time, they don't spew a gazillion useless comments through the code, etc.

    I don't think you can talk about agentic coding without saying which models you're talking about - there's a huge difference between the latest frontier models and those from 6 months ago.

  • source