I believe you got it wrong. The idea was that the AI should not be writing 95% of the code, thus reusing already existing in the internet quality-declining codebase but instead it should fill in the gaps for repetitive and inexpensive work.
That's exactly why gpt, phind, GitHub copilot shine among the developers, because they provide good boilerplates, debugging help and short code-snippets to be reviewed and reused. It's like a stack-overflow replacement. But I'd not trust AI software to take over the whole process, rather chunks of it that can be steadily monitored.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I believe you got it wrong. The idea was that the AI should not be writing 95% of the code, thus reusing already existing in the internet quality-declining codebase but instead it should fill in the gaps for repetitive and inexpensive work.
That's exactly why gpt, phind, GitHub copilot shine among the developers, because they provide good boilerplates, debugging help and short code-snippets to be reviewed and reused. It's like a stack-overflow replacement. But I'd not trust AI software to take over the whole process, rather chunks of it that can be steadily monitored.