> What I think happens is that these people save time because they only spot review the AI generated code, or skip the review phase altogether, which as I said above would be a deal breaker for me.
In my experience it's that they dump the code into a pull request and expect me to review it. So GenAI is great if someone else is doing the real work.
Is that really something you are doing in your job?
Most of my teams have been very allergic to assigning personal blame and management very focused on making sure everyone can do everything and we are always replaceable. So maybe I could phrase it like "X could help me with this" but saying X is responsible for the bug would be a no no.
Not really. I was talking more in the context of the parent comment. If your management is dysfunctional, allowing AI slop without the accountability, then you go with this extreme measure.
I don't mind fixing bugs, but I do mind reckless practices that introduce them.
That would be a reasonable thing to do, unfortunately this doesn't always happen. Say for example that your company is quite behind schedule and decides to pay some cheap contractors to work on anything that doesn't require domain expertise: In 2025 these cheap contractors will 100% vibe code their way through their assigned tickets. They will open PRs that look "nearly there" and basically hope for all green checks in your CI/CD pipeline. If that doesn't happen then they will try to bruteforce^W vibe code the PR for a couple of hours. If it still doesn't pass then claim that the PR is ready but there is something wrong for example with an external component which they can't touch due to contractual reasons...
One of the most bizarre experiences I have had over this past year was dealing with a developer who would screen share a ChatGPT session where they were trying to generate a test payload with a given schema, getting something that didn't pass schema validation, and then immediately telling me that there must be a bug in the validator (from Apache foundation). I was truly out of words.
I’ve experienced this as well. If management is not competent they can’t tell (or don’t want to hear) when a “star” performer is actually a very expensive wrapper around a $20/mo cursor subscription.
Unlike the author of the article I do get a ton of value from coding agents, but as with all tools they are less than useless when wielded incompetently. This becomes more damaging in an org that already has perverse incentives which reward performative slop over diligent and thoughtful engineering.