It isn't in my experience. Understanding code that you did not write for a problem that you do not fully grasp is a lot of work. It's hard enough when you did write the code and when you do fully grasp the problem, which you'd have to if you were to write it yourself. Typically that's what first draft code is for: to see if you actually understand the problem.

Do you find it takes more time to review a PR than it took for someone to figure out the solution and implement it?

Understanding the code of a fully fledged application is hard.

But with ChatGPT you can build it piece by piece.

With a brain you can also build it piece by piece, in fact I don't know of any other way of writing a large software system than doing it piece by piece.

Sure, but the argument was that reading an entire application's code is hard, therefore GPT-4 is counterproductive.

Validating code you understand, sure. Validating code for a language you don't know, I don't see how you could.

E.g. say you speak python, how would you know how to cleanup memory in C, since you never had to do it? Would you even know that you have to?

> Reading and validating code is way easier than figuring out how to write it in the first place

Not at all. I would even say it is harder because the code being reviewed is priming you.

All code is a leaky abstraction and if you don't know what to look for you just won't see it.

That's just not true. I expect software to become a magnitude shittier soon because of this attitude. After that I expect software to become unbelievably good, because thanks to AI we will have the ability to prove correctness of software much more cheaply than before, and to design on a higher level than before. After all, you don't want the AI to help you generate boilerplate code, you want the AI to help you avoid boilerplate code.

It is true if you can understand the code it writes. Maybe you are worried junior programmers are gonna churn out code using ChatGPT but to be honest I'd rather trust code from ChatGPT than from a junior, I feel ChatGPT writes better code on average.

I'd argue you only THINK you understand the code. If it generates a 1000 lines, which look like they are doing the right thing, will you be diligent enough to go through every single one of them? This literally can only work for extremely boilerplate code (which is maybe the code most of programmers write), but for most code I write I need a mental model of it, and constructing that model myself is easier than to try to learn it from some code. Of course ChatGPT can work as an inspiration, especially for working with unfamiliar APIs.