> Assuming they're like me, the planning is mostly done by a human, while the coding is largely done by the AI

I've largely settled on the opposite. AI has become very good at planning what to do and explaining it in plain English, but its command of programming languages still leaves a lot to be desired.

▲

calibas 6 days ago | parent [-]

It's good at checking plans, and helping with plans, but I've seen it make really really bad choices. I don't think it can replace a human architect.

	▲	bluefirebrand 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It can't replace a human anything, yet, but that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from trying unfortunately:(
	▲	9rx 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, much like many of the humans I have worked with, sometimes bad choices are introduced. But those bad choices are caught during the writing of the code, so that's not really that big of a deal when it does happen. It is still a boon to have it do most of the work. And remains markably better than when AI makes bad choices while writing code. That is much harder to catch and requires pouring over the code with a fine tooth comb to the point that you may as well have just written it yourself, negating all the potential benefits of using it to generate code in the first place.