> Maybe if Anthropic claimed that you could write an unsupervised loop that writes perfect software, the critics would make more sense.
Or to be upstanding, ethical companies that they are. Just put disclaimer after every prompt response and on their website "AI generated code has no absolutely no guarantee of quality or correctness. Human prompter must be held accountable for any mistake or inaccuracies."
Hope it wouldn't be too much bother to these important companies.
See, but that would counter act all of their marketing and hurt the feelings of all the execs that desperately want to believe that software development is "solved" and in the near future they won't have to hire those expensive, pesky developers ever again.
Two trends I see at work:
1) No more human written code in projects, all code must be AI generated.
2) Developers are responsible for all code AI generated.
Combine that with fear of losing job and you have no one calling out management bullshit on their face.
I don't see how these things conflict. Nor did I get the point you were making in the sarcastic upstream comment.
It is obviously the case that you can both delegate code implementation to AI and also be responsible for it. You are signing off on the code you submit to a project no matter where you got it from nor how it was generated nor who you delegated the task to ("actually my friend wrote it so if it sucks don't look at me").
AI didn't change this, nor will it until there are no more humans in the loop.
They don't conflict, if the generated code is acceptable. Maybe I'm holding it wrong, or I'm not using the right combination of plugins and MCPs. But if I'm not allowed to manually correct the generated output, then I am forced into a loop of generating corrections until it's good enough to stake my job on. I hope you can see that such a policy would be ridiculous.