alt Hacker NewsThis is the way it should've always been. I don't care what tool you use, but you'd better be ready to stand by and explain the results if necessary.
Replies
"This works for me, but I need help understanding why, because maybe it would help others" is a legitimate position to be in--has been since long before LLMs. I think we miss out on something when we ignore that position.
I'm not saying that anybody should be obligated to review large volumes of low confidence code... just that we should not make policies that ignore shades of gray which, with some collaboration, could bear fruit.
These are unprecedented times, I think every single company on the planet is figuring our what AI means to them.
I think the dust has kind of settled though for engineering teams on: You must use AI for your work, and you must stand by your work.
The meat between these two mandates are still being fleshed out.
Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions?
We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion.
[EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid excuse for breaking code?]