My work has involved a project that is almost entirely generated code for over a decade. Not AI generated, the actual work of the project is in creating the code generator.
One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. The nature of reviewing changes is just too different between them.
Another thing we learned very quickly was that attempting to generate code, then modify the result is not sustainable; nor is aiming for a 100% generated code base. The end result of that was that we had to significantly rearchitect the project for us to essentially inject manually crafted code into arbitrary places in the generated code.
Another thing we learned is that any change in the code generator needs to have a feature flag, because someone was relying on the old behavior.
I will guess that you are generating orders of magnitude more lines of code with your software than people do when building projects with LLMs - if this is true I don't think the analogy holds.
>In April, Microsoft’s CEO said that artificial intelligence now wrote close to a third of the company’s code. Last October, Google’s CEO put their number at around a quarter. Other tech companies can’t be far off.
Take a moment to reflect -- a third of the company's code? Generative AI capable enough to write reasonable code has arguably not been around longer than 5 years. In the 50 years of Microsoft, have the last 5 years contributed to a third of the total code base? This itself would require that not a single engineer write a single line of code in these 5 years.
Okay, maybe Microsoft meant to say new/incremental code?
No, because Satya is reported to have said, "I’d say maybe 20%, 30% of the code that is inside of our repos today [...] written by software".
Is there any evidence of this (anywhere, not just MS or Google)?