Post by @WraithGear@lemmy.world

2026-10-16 12:29 UTC

honestly the code should be stood behind by the developer. then it won’t matter. and by stood behind, i mean responsible for the outcome as if they wrote it, able to explain exactly what the code does, how it does it. and have been reviewed before deployment. often times that takes longer then just coding it yourself you can’t use ai as a scape goat when the code does not work.

Replies (2)

@yogthos@lemmy.ml 2026-10-16 13:30

Exactly, that’s the only rational way to look at it. The person submitting the code is responsible for it. Period. How they went about producing it is their own business, but they are the one who takes ownership of the result.

Open ##5061882
@alx@lemmy.zip 2026-10-16 21:13

Exactly. While I do have issues with the ethical and environmental aspects of AI, I do believe that many of the criticisms are disingenuous. Some made me wonder if the one criticizing it ever worked in a real dev project. Bad developer have been copy pasting from stack overflow, writing slop, not following documentation/standards for years. This will never go away. AI can do amazing good stuff, keeping the exit criterias checked, act as a second opinion, verifying upstreams and helping building a good prototype. making harnesses, hell even find a forgotten RAII pointer or concurrency. But it can also lead to making gibberish that no one understands, mess up with productivity factor (if someone do code fast, why dont you??) and many other issue. I think its all about approaching how we can gatekeep the bad code, instead of trying to pin how it was made.

Open ##5070170