I know where they fucked up and cost me thousands of dollars due to cutting corners during build-out and poor architectural decisions during planning. These kinds of things become very obvious during destructive inspection, which is probably why there are so many limitations on warranties; I digress.
He’s mildly controversial, but watch some @cyfyhomeinspections on YouTube to get a good idea of what you can infer of the “how” of building homes and how it affects homeowners. Especially relevant here because he seems to specialize in inspecting homes that are part of large developments where a single company builds out many homes very quickly and cuts tons of corners and makes the same mistakes repeatedly, kind of like LLM-generated code.
So you’re saying that whether it’s humans or AI - when you delegate something to others you have no idea whether it’s producing quality without you checking yourself…
> you have no idea whether it’s producing quality without you checking yourself
No, I can have some idea. For example, “brand perception”, which can be negatively impacted pretty heavily if things go south too often. See: GitHub, most recently.
I mean, there are already companies that have a negative reputation regarding software quality due to significant outsourcing (consultancies), or bloated management (IBM), or whatever tf Oracle does. We don’t have to pretend there’s a universe where software quality matters, we already live in one. AI will just be one more way to tank your company’s reputation with regards to quality, even if you can maintain profitability otherwise through business development schemes.
> So as long as it is meeting the requirements of “it stays up consistently and doesn’t lose my code” you really don’t care how it was coded…
I don’t think we’ll come to common ground on this topic due to mismatching definitions of fundamental concepts of software engineering. Maybe let’s meet again in a year or two and reflect upon our disagreement.
