I have a solution for that, I just need a small loan of a billion dollars and 5 years. #trustmebro

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

You’re making a great analogy with the 3D printing of a house.

However, if we consider the 3D printed house scenario; that skilled craftsman is now able to do things on his own that he would have needed a team for in the past. Most, if not all, of the less skilled members of that team are not getting any experience within the craft at that point. They’re no longer necessary when one skilled person can now do things on their own.

What happens when the skilled and highly experienced craftsmen that use AI as a supplemental tool (and subsequently earn all the work) eventually retire, and there’s been no juniors or mid-levels for a while? No one is really going to be qualified without having had exposure to the trade for several years.

I don't use one, and my coworkers that do use them are very loud about it, and worse at their jobs than they were a year ago.

If my coworkers do, they’re very quiet about it.

Gee, guess why. Given the current culture of hate and ostracism I would never outright say IRL that I like it or use it a lot. I would say something like "yeah, I think it can sometimes be useful when used carefully and I sometimes use it too". While in reality it would mean that it actually writes 95% of code under my micromanagement.

I've found them useful, sometimes, but nothing like a fraction of what the hype would suggest.

They're not adequate replacements for code reviewers, but getting an AI code review does let me occasionally fix a couple of blunders before I waste another human's time with them.

I've also had the occasional bit of luck with "why am I getting this error" questions, where it saved me 10 minutes of digging through the code myself.

"Create some test data and a smoke test for this feature" is another good timesaver for what would normally be very tedious drudge work.

What I have given up on is "implement a feature that does X" questions, because it invariably creates more work than it saves. Companies selling "type in your app idea and it'll write the code" solutions are snake-oil salesman.

I’m not a “software engineer” but a lot of people that don’t work within tech would probably call me one.

I’m in Cloud Engineering, but came from the sys/network admin and ops side of things rather than starting off in dev or anything like that.

Up until about 5 years ago, I really only knew Powershell and a little bit of bash. I’ve gotten up to speed in a lot of things but never officially learned python, js, go or any other real development language that would be useful to me. I’ve spent way more time focusing on getting good with IaC, and probably more of the SRE type stuff.

In my particular situation, LLMs are incredibly useful. It’s fair to say that I use them daily now. I’ve had it convert bash scripts to python for me very quickly. I don’t know python but now that I’m able to look at a python script next to my bash; I’m picking up on stuff a lot faster. I’m using Lambda way more often as a result.

Also, there’s a lot of mundane filling out forms shit that I delegate to an LLM. I don’t want to spend my time filling out a form that I know no one is actually going to read. F it, I’ll have the AI write a report for an AI. It’s dumb as shit, but that’s the world today.

https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ai/

47% daily use

They're not good at debugging. The article is pretty spot on, IMO - they're great at doing the work; but you are still the brain. You're still deciding what to do, and maybe 50% of the time how to do it, you're just not executing the lowest level anymore. Similar for debugging - this is not an exercise at the lowest level, and needs you to run it.

The company I work for has recently mandated that we must start using AI tools in our workflow and is tracking our usage, so I've been experimenting with it a lot lately.

In my experience, it's worse than useless when it comes to debugging code. The class of errors that it can solve is generally simple stuff like typos and syntax errors — the sort of thing that a human would solve in 30 seconds by looking at a stack trace. The much more important class of problem, errors in the business logic, it really really sucks at solving.

For those problems, it very confidently identifies the wrong answer about 95% of the time. And if you're a dev who's desperate enough to ask AI for help debugging something, you probably don't know what's wrong either, so it won't be immediately clear if the AI just gave you garbage or if its suggestion has any real merit. So you go check and manually confirm that the LLM is full of shit which costs you time... then you go back to the LLM with more context and ask it to try again. It's second suggestion will sound even more confident than the first, ("Aha! I see the real cause of the issue now!") but it will still be nonsense. You go waste more time to rule out the second suggestion, then go back to the AI to scold it for being wrong again.

Rinse and repeat this cycle enough times until your manager is happy you've hit the desired usage metrics, then go open your debugging tool of choice and do the actual work.

Definitely not good. Sometimes they can solve issues but you gotta point them in the direction of the issue. Other times they write hacky workarounds that do the job for the moment but crash catastrophically with the next major dependency update.

I use it extensively daily.

It cannot step through code right now, so true debugging is not something you use it for. Most of the time the llm will take the junior engineer approach of "guess and check" unless you explicitly give it better guidance.

My process is generally to start with unit tests and type definitions, then a large multipage prompt for every segment of the app the llm will be tasked with. Then I'll make a snapshot of the code, give the tool access to the markdown prompt, and validate its work. When there are failures and the project has extensive unit tests it generally follows the same pattern of "I see that this failure should be added to the unit tests" which it does and then re-executes them during iterative development.

If tests are not available or if it is not something directly accessible to the tool then it will generally rely on logs either directly generated or provided by the user.

My role these days is to provide long well thought out prompts, verify the integrity of the code after every commit, and generally just kind of treat the llm as a reckless junior dev. Sometimes junior devs can surprise you, like yesterday I was very surprised by a one shot result: asking for a mobile rn app for taking my rambling voice recordings and summarize them into prompts, it was immediately remarkably successful and now I've been walking around mic'd up to generate prompts.

My first level of debugging is logging things to console. LLMs here do a decent job at "reading your mind" and autocompleting "pri" into something like "println!("i = {}, x = {}, y = {}", i, x, y);" with very good context awareness of what and how exactly it makes most sense to debug print in the current location in code.

How is that pro-AI? It clearly very neutrally says it’s just a tool, which you can also hate.

I tried feeding ChatGPT a Terraform codebase once and asked it to produce an architecture diagram of what the code base would deploy to AWS.

It got most of the little blocks right for the services that would get touched. But the layout and traffic direction flow between services was nonsensical.

Truth be told it did do a better job than I thought it would initially.

It's true, the tech will get better in the future, we just need to believe and trust the plan.

Same thing with crypto and NFT's. They were 99% scam by volume, but who wouldn't love moving their life savings into a digital ecosystem controlled by a handful of rich gambling addicts with no consumer protections? Imagine, you'll never need to handle dirty paper money ever again, we'll just put it all in a digital wallet somewhere controlled by someone else coughmastercardcough.

And another thing, we were too harsh on the Metaverse. Sure, spending 8 hours in VR could make you vomit, and the avatars made ET for the Atari look like Uncharted 4, but it was just in its infancy!

I too want to outsource all my critical thinking to a chatbot controlled by an wealthy insular narcissist who throws Nazi salutes. The technology just needs time to mature. Who knows, maybe it can automate the exile of birthright citizens for us too!

/s