My colleague who didn’t ask nor describe his changes now generates descriptions and code comments through AI and it doesn’t improve anything. It’s verbose, imprecise, confusing, and irritating.

I wonder if and how much communication reduced with my other colleagues. I guess probably a bit where they now ask AI (first). But not significantly, in my team, luckily. We still regularly talk. But maybe it’s on a path of reduction right now. I would find it sad and bad as well.

It really is a very visible demonstration of human faultiness.

A reasonable engineering approach would have been an interesting new technology with open discussion and assessment and expansion of exploration. Instead, we get hype cycles and hyperbole claims and lies primarily driven and publicized and repeated as market marketing and investor marketing and an industry driven by money and investment rather than technology and reasonably explorative and increasing usage.

It’s sad and tragic. But not surprising. It’s a consequence of human psyche, social constructs and market and society system structure.

When I hear my colleague does a presentation differently for internal towards developers with more reasonable AI takes and a different one for external which basically practically joins the AI hype instead of voicing boundaries, it’s pretty sad that it can’t be honest communication throughout and be understood as such.

I don’t see it as an isolated fault of “corporate leadership” as in of development factories/teams. It’s a broad issue, from the AI companies, press hype, industry hype, to then corporate and broader industry leadership eating it up and implementing and expecting marketing and hype claims.

What kind of criteria or tests are you imagining?

A certificate after a test would only show capability, not continued practice. So my confidence in it wouldn’t be very high. Demonstrated practice seems more applicable than some cert some time ago. Some people chase certs to check boxes rather than prove or apply the practice.