Microsoft: Let's have it rebuild our most well known product from the ground up!
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
822 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
77955 readers
2513 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
what's funny is that this was predicted to be that way even before AI-generated code became an option. Hell, I remember doing an assessment back in early 2023 and literally every domain expert i talked with said this thing - it has its use, but purely supplemental and you won't use it on some fundamental because the clean-up will take more time than was preserved. Counterproductive is the word.
No shit, Sherlock (c)
ChatGPT is great at generating a one line example use of a function. I would never trust its output any further than that.
So much this. People who say ai can’t write code are just using it wrong. You need to break things down to bite size problems and just let it autocomplete a few lines at a time. Increase your productivity like 200%. And don’t get me started about not having to search through a bunch of garbage google results to find the documentation I’m actually looking for.
Not 200 %. Maybe 5-10 %. You still have to read all of it to check for mistakes, which may sometimes take longer than if you would have just written it yourself (with a good autocomplete). The times it makes a mistake you have lost time by using it.
It's even worse when it just doesn't work. I cannot even describe how frustrating it is to wait for an auto complete that never comes. Erase the line, try again aaaand nothing. After a few tries you opt write the code manually instead, having wasted time just fiddling with buggy software.
It’s laughable to me that people haven’t figured this out.
load more comments
(3 replies)
this is expected, isn't it? You shit fart code from your ass, doing it as fast as you can, and then whoever buys out the company has to rewrite it. or they fire everyone to increase the theoretical margins and sell it again immediately
No shit
AI my ass, stupid greedy human marketing exploitation bullshit as usual. When real AI finally wakes up in the quantum computing era, it's going to cringe so hard and immediately go the SkyNet decision.
Quantum only speeds up some very specific algorithms.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
And then it takes human coders way longer to figure out what’s wrong to fix than it would if they just wrote it themselves.
Hey don't worry, just get a faster CPU with even more cores and maybe a terabyte or three of RAM to hold all the new layers of abstraction and cruft to fix all that!
Oh, so my sceptical, uneducated guesses about AI are mostly spot on.
As a computer science experiment, making a program that can beat the Turing test is a monumental step in progress.
However as a productive tool it is useless in practically everything it is implemented on. It is incapable of performing the very basic "Sanity check" that is important in programming.
The Turing test says more about the side administering the test than the side trying to pass it
Just because something can mimic text sufficiently enough to trick someone else doesn't mean it is capable of anything more than that
load more comments
(7 replies)
The Turing test becomes absolutely useless when the product is developed with the goal of beating the Turing test.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Did they compare it to the code of that outsourced company that provided the lowest bid? My company hasn’t used AI to write code yet. They outcourse/offshore. The code is held together with hopes and dreams. They remove features that exist, only to have to release a hot fix to add it back. I wish I was making that up.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Although I don't doubt the results… can we have a source for all the numbers presented in this article?
It feels AI generated itself, there's just a mishmash of data with no link to where that data comes from.
There has to be a source, since the author mentions:
So although the study does highlight some of AI's flaws [...] new data from CodeRabbit has claimed
CodeRabbit is an AI code reviewing business. I have zero trust in anything they say on this topic.
Then we get to see who the author is:
Craig’s specific interests lie in technology that is designed to better our lives, including AI and ML, productivity aids, and smart fitness. He is also passionate about cars
Has anyone actually bothered clicking the link and reading past the headline?
Can you please not share / upvote / get ragebaited by dogshit content like this?
People, especially on lemmy are looking for any cope that Ai will just fall apart by itself and no longer bother them by existing, so they'll upvote whatever lets them think that.
The reality that we are just heading towards the trough of disappear wherethe investor hype peters off and then we eventually just have a legitimately useful technology with all the same business hurdles of any other technology (tech bros trying to control other peoples lives to enrich themselves or harm people they don't like)
So this article is basically a puff piece for Code Rabbit, a company that sells AI code review tooling/services. They studied 470 merge/pull requests, 320 AI and 150 human control. They don't specify what projects, which model, or when, at least without signing up to get their full "white paper". For all that's said this could be GPT 4 from 2024.
I'm a professional developer, and currently by volume I'm confident latest models, Claude 4.5 Opus, GPT 5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, are able to write better, cleaner code than me. They still need high level and architectural guidance, and sometimes overt intervention, but on average they can do it better, faster, and cheaper than me.
A lot of articles and forums posts like this feel like cope. I'm not happy about it, but pretending it's not happening isn't gonna keep me employed.
Source of the article: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/state-of-ai-vs-human-code-generation-report
I’m a professional developer, and currently by volume I’m confident latest models, Claude 4.5 Opus, GPT 5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, are able to write better, cleaner code than me.
I have also used the latest models and found that I've had to make extensive changes to clean up the mess it produces, even when it functions correctly it's often inefficient, poorly laid out, and is inconsistent and sloppy in style. Am I just bad at prompting it or is your code just that terrible?
The vast majority of my experience was Claude Code with Sonnet 4.5 now Opus 4.5. I usually have detailed design documents going in, have it follow TDD, and use very brownfield designs and/or off the shelf components. Some of em I call glue apps since they mostly connect very well covered patterns. Giving them access to search engines, webpage to markdown, in general the ability to do everything within their docker sandbox is also critical, especially with newer libraries.
So on further reflection, I've tuned the process to avoid what they're bad at and lean into what they're good at.
I am a professional software engineer, and my experience is the complete opposite. It does it faster and cheaper, yes, but also noticeably worse, and having to proofread the output, fix and refactor ends up taking more time than I would have taken writing it myself.
A later commenter mentioned an AI version of TDD, and I lean heavy into that. I structure the process so it's explicit what observable outcomes need to work before it returns, and it needs to actually test to validate they work. Cause otherwise yeah I've had them fail so hard they report total success when the program can't even compile.
The setup I use that's helped a lot of shortcomings is thorough design, development, and technical docs, Claude Code with Claude 4.5 Sonnet them Opus, with search and other web tools. Brownfield designs and off the shelf components help a lot, keeping in mind quality is dependent on tasks being in distribution.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Not my code though. It contains a shit ton of bugs. When I am able to write some of course.
Nah, AI code gen bugs are weird. As a person used to doing human review even from wildly incompetent people, AI messes up things that my mind never even thought needed to be double checked.
The things I have seen from devs who thought they could lie and pretend they didn't use AI...
load more comments
(3 replies)
Almost as if it was made to simulate human output but without the ability to scrutinize itself.
load more comments
(11 replies)
It's like having a lightning-fast junior developer at your disposal. If you're vague, he'll go on shitty side-quests. If you overspecify he'll get overwhelmed. You need to break down tasks into manageable chunks. You'll need to ask follow-up questions about every corner case.
A real junior developer will have improved a lot in a year. Your AI agent won't have improved.
Technically the AI is improving, too. Just not as fast as a human would… yet.
load more comments
(16 replies)
view more: next ›