If it's automating the interesting problem solving side of things and leaving just debugging code that one isn't familiar with, I really don't see value to humanity in such use cases. That's really just making debugging more time consuming and removing the majority of fulfilling work in development (in ways that are likely harder to maintain and may be subject to future legal action for license violations). Better to let it do things that it actually does well and keep engaged programmers.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

People who rely on this shit don’t know how to debug anything. They just copy some code, without fully understanding the library or the APIs or the semantics, and then they expect someone else to debug it for them.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We do a lot of real-time control software, and just yesterday we were taking about how the newer folks are really good at using available tools and libraries, but they have less understanding of what's happening underneath and they have problems when those tools don't/can't do what we need.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I see the same thing with our newer folks. (And some older folks too.) and management seems to encourage it. Scary scary stuff. Because when something goes wrong there’s only a couple of people who can really figure it out. If I get hit by a bus or laid off, that’s going to be a big problem for them.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Yep, you get it. And it's really hard to get people to understand the value in learning to do that stuff without the tools.