Post #1439833

2026-03-17 12:08 UTC

@Haste …it’s about quality control, regardless who wrote the code (AI or human, or more likely the combination) , it is fiction to think that there will be large code bases without AI input in the near future

Replies (3)

@Haste@mastodon.social 2026-03-17 12:18

@ErikJonker respectfully: so what? The premise of your argument seems to be “it’s inevitable, get used to it, obviously we will adjust QA practices until it’s okay”. Which strikes me as a unique blend of defeatism and magical thinking. 1st: Companies already ignore QA teams and responsibility today 2nd: even it *is* inevitable, I can still control and make decisions for myself. I am not obligated to accept an inevitable outcome, nor is it wise to trust that it’ll work itself out in the wash.

Open ##1439834
@odd@mstdn.social 2026-03-17 13:15

@ErikJonker But would you trust code that has been generated and only after the fact being checked by a human? There is just no way someone actually able to sign off on that. From what I see from vibecoders is that they focus on the happy flow but won't ever consider edge cases and 'trust the system' for that. I'd say QC on those systems is more unthinkable than keeping a codebase 'human only'. @Haste

Open ##1439839
@fedor@todon.nl 2026-03-17 13:43

@ErikJonker @Haste It isn't fiction: https://inkscape.org/news/2026/03/02/inkscape-is-hiring-2026-1/

Open ##1439846