To the same point as lepinkainen, we are fully responsible for the code we commit. We are expected to understand what we've committed as if we wrote it ourselves. We treat it as a speed booster. The fact that Claude does a good job at maintaining the same structure as the rest of the codebase makes it no different than trying to understand changes made by a co-worker.

On your topic of dependency, the same point as above applies. If AI support were to drop tomorrow, we would be slower, the work would get done all the same.

I do agree with you though. I can tell we are getting more relaxed with the changes Claude makes and putting more blind trust in it. I'm curious as to how we will be in a years time.

As a disclaimer, I'm just a developer, I've no attachment to my company. This is just my take on the subject.

Not OP but:

In our company programmers are still fully responsible for the code they commit and must be able to explain it in a PR review.

It just speeds up things, it doesn’t replace anyone.

Simple things that would’ve taken a day can be done before lunch now, just because it’s just prompt + read code + PR (full unit and integration test suites ofc, made by humans)