> We have a term for that already and it is called "comprehension debt".

This isn't any different than the "person who wrote it already doesn't work here any more".

> now requiring engineers to manually review AI changes [2] (which slows them down even with AI).

What does this say about the "code review" process if people cant understand the things they didn't write?

Maybe we have had the wrong hiring criteria. The "leet code", brain teaser (FAANG style) write some code interview might not have been the best filter for the sorts of people you need working in your org today.

Reading code, tooling up (debuggers, profilers), durable testing (Simulation, not unit) are the skill changes that NO ONE is talking about, and we have not been honing or hiring for.

No one is talking about requirements, problem scoping, how you rationalize and think about building things.

No one is talking about how your choice of dev environment is going to impact all of the above processes.

I see a lot of hype, and a lot of hate, but not a lot of the pragmatic middle.

▲

xienze 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> This isn't any different than the "person who wrote it already doesn't work here any more".

Yeah but that takes years to play out. Now developers are cranking out thousands of lines of “he doesn’t work here anymore” code every day.

	▲	zer00eyz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Yeah but that takes years to play out. https://www.invene.com/blog/limiting-developer-turnover has some data, that aligns with my own experience putting the average at 2 years. I have been doing this a long time: my longest running piece of code was 20 years. My current is 10. Most of my code is long dead and replaced because businesses evolve, close, move on. A lot of my code was NEVER ment to be permanent. It solved a problem in a moment, it accomplished a task, fit for purpose and disposable (and riddled with cursing, manual loops and goofy exceptions just to get the job done). Meanwhile I have seen a LOT of god awful code written by humans. Business running on things that are SO BAD that I still have shell shock that they ever worked. AI is just a tool. It's going from hammers to nail guns. The people involved are still the ones who are ultimately accountable.