There’s been a meme circulating about how AI doesn’t help because “code was never the hard part.” I think that’s true in some domains, but in others, writing the code absolutely was the hard part. JIT compilers are a great example of that.
I believe this because every time I use AI for domains that I consider myself above competent, if it is anything beyond UI components or a simple CRUD endpoints, I cringe at the quality of what it generates.
This has made me to be extremely cautious of starting working in a new domain with AI if I want anything beyond throw away quick hacks or junk, shy of quick bug fixes perhaps.
That’s not a joke. A lot went on to be programmers professionally. And judging by the quality of closed & open source code I witness daily those figures from university accurately depict people’s capabilities.
Now that said, if you can’t really code then using AI will be a godsend to said individuals.
the tell-tale mark of AI code is highly over-engineered local solutions to trivial problems that don't matter, or that were already solved better elsewhere and that no sane human would ever duplicate.
It generally performs better if the tasks are broken done into small manageable pieces, and the person is actually reviewing and calling out problems, which usually requires the person to be a competent engineer in the problem domain to begin with.
But yes, I have personally used it to build what the OP calls a JIT. I would usually write that by hand and it would take me one week. The AI does it in an hour.
I used Fable on a Zephyr project with time sensitive code for LR-WPAN and it broke everything. Literally made the code worst to the point that the devices stopped connecting.
And even if everyone is using the same LLM model, quality varies on lot on who's driving it.
If I need to be a domain expert anyway, the value of the tool goes down by orders of magnitude. Same if I need to first break the task down into pieces and keep reviewing all the output. That sounds to me like >80% of the work I'd need to do anyway.
If I need to design and understand all of the code anyway, I might as well skip the whole process of repeatedly fixing the subpar-at-every-level LLM output and write it all myself.
Personally, I've found the greatest value in asking for simple tasks, like wiring up APIs, generating boilerplate, bug finding etc. Anything that requires effort to do but results in either very little or very simple output, so that I can easily verify its correctness.
But give the LLM anything remotely complex to generate and it cakes its pants.
You absolutely don't. You only need to be roughly aware of what the code needs to be doing. Similar to how a software architect historically didn't personally oversee every line of code in an org, only it's overall structure. The implementation specific details can be left to the AI.
Also often the difficulty with writing code is simply knowing where to start - getting past the blank page. AI can help a lot with that. Often there's a task where I've got kind of writers block, but you can ask AI to do it and suddenly it's like "ah yeah, sort of but actually that's not quite right we should do it this way".
Besides all the other mentioned points, I think a good remaining less-discussed point is that quality in software has always been in the eye of the beholder. You may very well see the AI output as low quality, I may not, and its not necessarily clear who is right or wrong, because there was always little precedent in objectively evaluating code quality.
This is a long standing issue, and was never resolved before AI happened, and the coming of AI has not really changed things, except that AI is under a magnifying glass obviously. How do we objectively measure the quality of code? There's some general consensus on things, but surprisingly little is true professional agreed upon consensus.
If I can make up a figure, I would guess 95% of software engineering quality rhetoric, and craftmanship advice, is just strongly held opinions.
This is not something I can prove, but if I look at the (still ongoing.....) debates on very basic ideas like clean code, and the reactions from also-great programmers like Carmack, Blow & Muratori, it is clear to me that there is little consensus on even the fundamentals of software design.
If all these people can produce excellent working software while disagreeing on these fundamentals (of quality), it means we do not yet understand what the fundamentals are.
Software is no different. So when someone claims that "you can't question the quality of AI output because quality of software is [partly] subjective", they're appealing to subjectivism. This position is generally held by the incompetent to entirely dismiss any question of craftsmanship or quality.
I've also never claimed that "you can't question the quality of AI output because quality of software is [partly] subjective". I'm not sure how you got there. I am simply saying that "quality" is an ill defined term and this is why we might see so much divergence when discussing AI code "quality".
You can absolutely evaluate code quality objectively, e.g performance, bugs, crashes.
What if it was rejected on an objective basis? You can't know, so you have to err on the side of caution, but you didn't.
So it's not embarrassing at all. In fact, it is more embarrassing to double down without knowing more.
It's a fallacy because you can always say that the choice of an objective metric was subjective, so everything is subjective.
> Anyone who thinks AI is good with writing code that is hard to write for the operator, not due to lack of basic software engineering know how but complexity of the domain, either has access to models beyond what is available to the public or is completely lost.
You could read it as quality in the operational correctness sense, but just as well in the software architectural design sense. My comment indeed applies to only one of those.
However, why judge correctness as a "cringe on quality", rather than just objectively saying its producing errors. This is why my response is in the software direction.
Absolutely, at the end of the day the only metrics that matter are performance and code validity. A lot of the "this code is awful" arguments I hear just boil down to "this code is stylistically awful" and never talk about it's performance.
In a long run session Fable 5 generated a Disney principled (physically based) shading/lighting engine from scratch, both with a CPU (SIMD accelerated) backend _and_ a full GPU Vulkan backend. Exceptional performance too; the CPU backend runs almost realtime and literally looks better than some AAA games outright. Took it about ~8 hours wall time total time to achieve this.
In fairness, UI components are probably one of the hardest things to do completely correctly, even with just HTML. As soon as you start thinking about i18n, screen reader support, color contrast, keyboard controls, and all of the layout and positioning you're trying to achieve at different viewport sizes, it's extremely hard for a "just competent" engineer to do an S-tier job. Even with the most vanilla default built in components it's not easy to get this correct, and I think we all cringe at what competent engineers create by hand in this domain.