> Some devs just 'get it' and thrive, leading a team really well and building a great culture.
I don't think it's this because the outcome you get from AI isn't controllable. You can give it the best prompts and design suggestions and it'll still give you completely wrong or horribly written code.
If you were a manager and one of your reports kept producing completely wrong and horribly written code that other folks on the team keep bringing up as problematic in PR reviews or privately, that developer would eventually be fired for someone better.
But in the AI case, there is no replacement because all of the LLMs have severe problems.
> because the outcome you get from AI isn't controllable. You can give it the best prompts and design suggestions and it'll still give you completely wrong or horribly written code.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but it seems you’re not accounting for iteration and feedback. A horse will veer off of a road if not occasionally nudged to stay on it, but is useful transportation, nevertheless.
> I don’t have a dog in this fight but it seems you’re not accounting for iteration and feedback
You can provide AI official sources to look at and dozens of prompts. I've lost track of the number of times where it didn't arrive at the right answer with tons of opportunities to correct itself based on feedback.
Just an endless of sea of "you're absolutely right to have brought that up, I didn't think about that" and other phrases it constantly uses when it fails to provide a solution. Fast forward 20 minutes later and it starts providing the same nonsense it did at the beginning because it forgot what it already said.
The code solutions it provides are so consistently bad but it's not limited to code. I recently tried a YouTube feature where it can generate AI thumbnails from your video. The results were really lackluster. It completely ignored my feedback like "use a real webcam photo of me that you see in the video", to which the AI recreated a completely different looking human that wasn't me. It even swapped out my real glasses with a rendering of glasses I don't have and kept on making incorrect assumptions about everything. After about 10 prompts and 20 minutes of waiting for thumbnails I gave up, it was really poor.
None of that supports the claim that it "isn't controllable," though. A curious mind should probably find it interesting that it can be fallible in those ways yet still be useful for producing work, and ask how both can be true at the same time.
>I don't think it's this because the outcome you get from AI isn't controllable. You can give it the best prompts and design suggestions and it'll still give you completely wrong or horribly written code.
sorry if it's not the case but i have the feeling you still think AI coding involves talking to a chatbox and copypasting the answers
I don't think it's this because the outcome you get from AI isn't controllable. You can give it the best prompts and design suggestions and it'll still give you completely wrong or horribly written code.
If you were a manager and one of your reports kept producing completely wrong and horribly written code that other folks on the team keep bringing up as problematic in PR reviews or privately, that developer would eventually be fired for someone better.
But in the AI case, there is no replacement because all of the LLMs have severe problems.