Eh, sorry, I may have been too quick to judge, but in the past when I have shared examples of AI-generated code to skeptics, the conversation rapidly devolves into personal attacks on my ability as an engineer, etc.
I think the challenge is to not be over-exuberant nor to be overly skeptical. I see AI as just another tool in the toolbox, the fact that lots of people produce crap is no different from before: lots of people produced crappy code well before AI.
But there are definitely exceptions and I think those are underexposed, we don't need 500 ways to solve toy problems we need a low number of ways to solve real ones.
Some of the replies to my comment are exactly that, they show in a much more concrete way than the next pelican-on-a-bicycle what the state of the art is really capable of and how to achieve real world results. Those posts are worth gold compared to some of the junk that gets high visibility, so my idea was to use the opportunity to highlight those instead.
I think the challenge is to not be over-exuberant nor to be overly skeptical. I see AI as just another tool in the toolbox, the fact that lots of people produce crap is no different from before: lots of people produced crappy code well before AI.
But there are definitely exceptions and I think those are underexposed, we don't need 500 ways to solve toy problems we need a low number of ways to solve real ones.
Some of the replies to my comment are exactly that, they show in a much more concrete way than the next pelican-on-a-bicycle what the state of the art is really capable of and how to achieve real world results. Those posts are worth gold compared to some of the junk that gets high visibility, so my idea was to use the opportunity to highlight those instead.