Precisely today I was reading this opinion piece:
That resonates with the idea of AI producing technical debt at increasing rates and failing in most task:
I don’t remember another study about how easy is to change code written with AI without it, but when the metrics are changed, it seems that is not as hyper fabulous and disruptive as many want the majority to think about AI. This piece from Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School shows another perspective:
My limited usage of AI for coding I ask for specific task, including testing the functionality and I make small commits with that functionality, while avoiding AI in general. So far I feel that I have good understanding of the code I’m writing and I have pretty good localized/minimized the one I don’t. But I’m worry about AI wide spread usage in learning contexts and that’s why I also worried about AI being enabled by default in Pluto and hopefully will address that in its source code repository to speak with @fonsp and Pluto’s developer community, as defaults, by definition, are the way to make decisions implicit and for others.
Hopefully the society will arrive to a more critical adoption of AI in general and in coding and education in particular, to realize the proper transformations where is pertinent, while not treating as some kind of silver bullet for everything.