Solid, particularly the advice about context. I find with AI, less is better. Once you have "enough" context, adding more increases the risk of problems. The one I take exception with is the last. "You don't need to understand what the AI wrote". I feel you absolutely do need to understand what the AI wrote and if you don't you should not commit it.

Thanks. I know the last one is controversial, but the way I am starting to think about it is that we are just moving to a new layer of abstraction. I no longer understand very well how hardware works, nor do I know in detail how a browser renders a page, nor the full fine details of how many of the libraries I use work. My own AI generated code, in pockets, is starting to work in the same way. And I'm starting to become OK with that risk.

The implementations for those abstractions are well tested (hopefully). Committing code that we don’t thoroughly test or have an understanding about is going to bite us sooner than later. They are landmines. Not abstractions.

Is it possible we hit a wikipedia moment (it being more accurate than Encyclopedias) where the quality of typical ai generated code is better than popular open source libraries?