Up to 70% or more of statistics in sales calls are exaggerated, waffley or completely made up.
Even if true it's quite funny because code volume is not a good metric. It's why developer productivity generally should not measured in "LOC produced".
Or to paraphrase Blaise Pascal: "If I had more time, I would have written less code."
Well 90% of my test code is AI generated, and we have a lot of tests. Also Cursor is really good at generating all my documentation. So depending on how we spin it, I could say at least half the code (often more if I'm spinning up new stuff it can do based off existing stuff) in my PR was AI generated.
That said, AI wasn't very good until it had enough examples and guidance from us on our codebase. After that though, it definitely helps.
Caveat: I'm no rocket scientist. It's not difficult code. It's just web services and whatnot. The code is often the least difficult part of my job.
Ever used azure? Sure seems like there was an inhuman force behind it
I'd be curious how much of MSFT's code is generated by simple auto-complete (intellisense) vs AI powered auto-complete vs generated from a prompt.
I wonder about ai-generated code with respect to copyright.
>I'd say maybe 20%, 30% of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software.
This sentence is carefully crafted. It's an opinion, not a statement of fact, so he can cover his ass. In other words, legal lying. Elon Musk does the same thing all the time. Somehow, the markets don't see through the obvious bullshit.
What I found in practise is that AI generated code is typically 30% longer than it should be compared to how an experienced senior would write it.
It’s not that it is wrong or anything - it’s just unnecessary verbose.
Which you could argue is not a problem if it won’t be read by humans anyways anymore in the near future.