We’re using it for closing security flaws identified by another tool. It’s boring, unchallenging work that is nonetheless still important. It’s also repetitive and uncreative enough that I’m comfortable having a machine do it.
There’s still human review but when it’s stuff like “your error messages should escape variables” or “write a longer function name” having a tool that can do most of the grunt work is valuable.
I wouldn’t call it a hazard, but don’t plan on doing anything important for the rest of the day.
100%, we’re doing human and automated reviews on the code changes, and the code explanation is just the first step of several.
you have to be there when the code was written and went through the various iterations.
Well, we don’t have that. We’re mostly dealing with other people’s mistakes and tech debt. We have messy things like nested stored procedures.
If all we get is some high level documentation of how components interact I’m happy. From there we can start splitting off the useful chunks for human review.
I’m in software and we’re experimenting with using it for certain kinds of development work, especially simpler things like fixing identified vulnerabilities.
We also have a pilot started to see if one can explain and document an old code base no one knows anymore.
It would be like a construction company replacing a team of carpenters with some people who took a weekend woodworking course.
It takes a special kind of clueless to think they would be remotely equivalent.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as an unbiased AI. They’re all biased based on the input data.
Something like this would be inherently subjective, it’s not a pure data question with a clear yes or no.
If mine could do that “find me the approval email for x last week” I’d use it, but if outlook had a decent search I wouldn’t need it.