posted in Technology
80% of developers find AI coding more addictive than helpful
A new Coddy Developer Survey found that four in five developers, 80%, say their use of AI has felt more like a dependence than an advantage.
www.zdnet.com/article/80-of-developers-find-ai-coding-more-addictive-than-helpful/
Well, yeah…
Most of the time it doesn’t work, rarely it does.
Intermittent rewards are what we’re wired for. That’s why random rewards/acknowledgment tickle our brains more than standard rewards we know are coming.
That’s the reason there’s such a big push “to just try it”.
It’s the same strategy the first crack dealers used
It feels so weird to read lemmy, as if I’m living in a different reality. To me, most of the time an agent can oneshot a ticket (if it has a good, non-vague description) or at least do 80-90% that can be fixed with several changes or prompts, and only odd tasks need more manual investigations than that.
Surely you still need a dev oversight and someone needs to do tech plans & lead the projects, but that’s not like anything people experience here.
I can believe that an agent can do 80% of a competent job. But the 80/20 rule posits that the 20% is the hard part, the part that actually justifies your salary. If a human is not going to go in and do that 20% (which might be 80% of the effort), then having the AI do the easiest 80% doesn’t gain you anything at all.
It depends on the task. Oneshotting 80% of the new feature and then failing to pick up on details can leave hard part.
But oneshotting even 30% of UI tests based on QA regression means you have 30% of regression covered. Ofc you need to verify if the test is indeed covering the test case, and for a big volume of tests it takes time, but it’s nowhere near what it takes to actually write the tests.