I'm not quite a doomer. I use AI every single day. I also take a fairly negative view of AI generated code, but I think it's unavoidable while remaining employed these days. A fact I find pretty depressing.
I absolutely agree with the author that humans need to be in the loop reviewing and understand the code they're merging, and generally take a "Hey, build X like Y utilizing Z" approach when using AI to build instead of the "Hey, solve this problem" approach. Our PE overlords actually mandate the latter, but I'm not doing it.
However, a point the author misses is that with AI, major refactors become relatively quick. Hours instead of months/years.
Yes, AI can and probably will land you with major foundational and architectural problems, but your architecture isn't set in stone anymore. Your entire codebase bends like a leaf in the wind.
Yep great point, it works both ways. It can dig you a hole faster, but also help you get out of it with less effort.
Yes but if you don't care enough to think about, analyze, and decide how to improve your architecture, it doesn't matter. And I'm seeing that a lot with full vibe code code bases
>major refactors become relatively quick. Hours instead of months/years..
This will probably maintain the problem in a different form.