I am pretty sure I know the answer, but I am wondering what people think about this. Say you come across a new fediverse platform. It has a lot of innovative features, and seems to be well thought out overall. A lot of people have been excited by the features and have been joining to check these new features out.
The one rub, the project admits that they used AI agents in the foundational stages of the project to accelerate development progress, then once the foundation was built, they analyzed, bug fixed, and documented the code, and brought in human contributors to assist with developing the project going forward. They do still allow AI code, but only certain types and using certain quality protocols to ensure code consistency, and are clear and up front about this, and unapologetic, as it was the only way they could make this project happen in the time and manner it did.
I know AI is somewhat more accepted in the coding world these days, depending on who you talk to, but I know some people have strong stances in it. How would you feel about a project like this? Under what circumstances would you be ok with joining a platform that has used AI in its code?
Ok, so let’s come at it from another angle then. Say you are semi new to programming, having taken an intro to programming and database design courses in college as part of a non-programmimg engineering undergrad degree. You have had an interest in the fediverse for a while now, and understand the general basics of activitypub, at protocol, actors, instances, PDS, lexicons, etc. You’re far from an expert, but understand enough to be able to spot and correct critical design errors that the AI has made. You test out some of the latest AI coding tools to see if they could help make a basic prototype of your idea, and it works. Not perfectly, and not without bugs, but the foundation is there, and seems sound. How would you proceed from there? Would it be a good idea at this point to get some experts and experienced programmers? Is it possible to build a sound architecture in this way, by prototyping up front for the basics to test the viability of an idea overall, and then getting more hands on with a team to really make sure the foundation is solid, before commiting too many lines of code to it? How much prototyping in this fashion is too much?
They might think they understand enough, but they don’t.
Any dev that doesn’t have crippling imposter syndrome for their first 5 years of professional development work is delusional. I didn’t shake mine until about 15 years in.
So then how would you suggest they proceed with their idea? Abandon their current career to go to school for programming? Just abandon the idea entirely because they haven’t spent 15 years with imposter syndrome? What would you think the best course of action be?
Contribute to an existing project, without using AI, to build their skills and learn from others.
This entire situation would not have arisen is AI did not exist. I have had an interest in programming for years, but never had the time or energy to invest in learning. AI has allowed me to play around with it without spending hours and hours in a boot camp. I would not even know where to begin on contributing to an existing project, especially since I have this idea that seems to not really align with any one project that exists thus far. I doubt existing projects would like me to just start wedging my own features into their project. That is why I started my own, so I could have creative control. But you are saying that I haven’t paid my dues yet or something?
Oh, when I said “without using AI” I didn’t mean total abstinence. I’m sure it is very very helpful for learning, if used right.
A lot has changed since I started doing this, perhaps I am too old and my advice is no longer relevant. Maybe my ways of thinking about a programmer’s path don’t apply to people today. Perhaps you will forge a path for yourself that would totally surprise me. That would be great :)