> I don't know what jobs have been impacted yet, but there will likely be pressure for all content creators and knowledge workers to use the tools to get more work done.

You claimed that it already happened to illustrators and artists, and while I am sure they use it one way or another, I don't think it transformed the industry. Now, I am not saying that it won't amount to anything in software, I just don't think it is ready as of right now outside of greenfield projects, mostly because the scope is limited.

I am pretty positive that at some point we'll have a tool which will automate the generation -> code review -> fixing (multiple loops) -> releasing without people. Currently people are the bottleneck and imo a better way is to exclude people completely outside of initial problem statement and accepting the result. Otherwise it is just too janky, that 10x comes with a huge asterisk that can unironically slow you down after all said and done.

▲

echelon 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I can write, unit test, code review, and QA test new HTTP endpoints in all of 15-30 minutes. It's good code.

I really don't know what else to say.

	▲	bloomca 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think fundamentally this approach is flawed for anything more complex than a simple endpoint. AI is already really good for throwaway code, that is very clear, it is also decent if you watch it like a hawk. However, the complexity is still not handled super well, as you need to spend more time in code review and testing to make sure all edge cases are covered and the general module interconnection is decent. Ideally we want to modularize and make the breaking surface very small, but often it is not possible. I think the next step is to fully remove people as accepting changes manually is just too brittle; I also think it is probably possible to do with the current tools but needs a very different approach from the current meta of highly specific docs.