That’s on me, I meant the equivalent of a “trust me bro” , in this case an anecdotal “me and the people I know all say…”

showing Claude submissions is sufficient for analyzing code in the context I believe it is good

Yes, in the context you provided it makes sense, as a response to my question which specified examples of larger projects/workflows, it does not.

Im not here to argue either, I asked a specific question and your answer didn’t really address any of it, i was just pointing that out.

I too find it frustrating but it seems for different reasons.

I really really dislike the way it’s being sold as a solution for things it’s in no way a solution for.

They do certain things fine, good even, but blanket statements like “their code is great” without appropriate qualifiers is contributing to the validation of these bullshit sales-oriented claims of task competency.

1: agreed

2: then I think you are missing the fundamental limitations of the current approaches, but we can agree to disagree on this.

3: see 2

I agree with jobs on the chopping block, though i think that’s in large part due to poor due diligence and planing by management, but that’s nothing new, the same thing has and is still happening with offshoring (throwing more people at a problem generally won’t solve design and governance issues).

I also think the current systems aren’t capable of being a viable replacement for anything above junior level stuff, if that ( not that that doesn’t present it’s own problems )

I think the difference in opinion comes from my belief that LLM’s and the current tooling around them aren’t fundamentally capable of replacing existing resources, not that they just don’t have the power yet.

Putting increasing large compute in a calculator won’t magically make it a spreadsheet application.

I appreciate the answer but that’s not at all what i asked.

I have anecdotes and personal experience i could cite but that’s not particularly helpful in a general sense.

Pointing to claude submissions in projects is actively less than helpful in this case because it only proves that single files in isolation look like they are well written, it gives no indication of overall project quality.

People that I know to be good developers have also shared their experiences with it and say yes, it has written good code for them. I’ve personally used ChatGPT to generate very mundane tasks and the code it output was more than adequate.

So in a very limited context the code generated for you personally was acceptable, that’s great, i’ve found much the same, but that’s a far cry from “AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck.”

It’s somewhat my bad though, when i say “citation” i don’t need a full research paper (though that would be nice) i’d like something a bit more substantial than a “trust me bro”.

It introduces security bugs and subtle bugs at probably the same rate as a human (I have no “citation” there, just what I’ve seen)

That’s a load-bearing probably, my experience has been the polar opposite of that, I’ve been involved in two major AI initiatives and both choked hard on security and domain bugs. That could very well be a project management or company specific issue, hence the search for successful projects to compare.

My quest continues.

It really doesn’t suck at them. AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck.

Citation? I’m really asking because I’ve yet to hear about anything above a toy project that has had any verifiable success with AI code generation as a major component of their workflow.

As in a like for like improvement in code quality, security, bug occurrences and severity, developer efficiency, all that jazz, not just the standard “we’ve funnelled so much money in to this we are almost fiscally required to claim success”

its not a dig, i really want to see one so i can found out how it was done.