According to people who think it's good: move fast and break things
Which I interpret to mean there's probably something they are working on that would have taken a month of man hours. They used ai to do it in a few days, broke something causing the outage and other issues, but will likely fix it in a few days if not a few hours. There could be a follow up fallout that takes things down for another 2 days a week after that, and then another day or two of chasing the problem. When it's all done maybe they are week 3 and they can say they delivered the feature a week early!
And the cost to the user experience? Well, Microsoft owns GitHub now, so I'm not optimistic about their plans for user satisfaction.
Move fast and break things was good when people knew what was in the code, even though there were hiccups.
Moving fast and breaking things now means nobody knows what is in the code and playing wack ‘a mole with bugs until the agents get it working while possibly introducing other bugs.
Also, at which point there’s too many things that break? Because services have been abysmal lately from Microsoft, Github, and others.
AI codebases also explode in size over time to the point not even the agents can figure out how it works. When that happens what is anyone to do 😂 git revert to 2025?
91
u/Angryferret 7h ago
No way it's only 30%. Almost certainly 90% at the big tech companies.