5 with reasonable acceptance and use, even advocacy, for up to 1. I don’t see a difference between 4 and 5, though.

Reviews should be the norm. Even for simple changes, a simple code change should be simple to review and approve, too. At the same time, some formatting changes or small or minimal changes with high confidence can be pushed to main without review - that’d be just wasted time and effort on the reviewer’s side. High urgency can also warrant an immediate push to main, or live hotfixing on prod if possible, with a corresponding PR still open.

It’s a tool that adds yet more complexity to our profession. More choice, more cost-benefit-analysis, more risk assessment, more shitty stuff to inherit and fix, more ability for shitty code producers to hide incompetence, more product and data policy analysis, more publisher trustworthyness and safety analysis, more concerns regarding what tooling sends into the cloud and what it can access and do locally, a significant “cheap and fast solution” you will be compared against requiring more communication, explanation, justification, new attack vectors to protect against, …

My team and some others [can] use Copilot at my workplace. I haven’t had or seen significant gains. Only very selectively. Some other senior devs I trust are also skeptical/selective. We see the potential opportunities, but they’re not new solutions. Some other colleagues are more enthusiastic.

What it does is make me question bad code from review request authors. Whether they missed it, are this unobservant, or incapable, or used AI. Quality, trustworthyness, and diligence are concerns anyway, but now I can’t really assess how much care and understanding they actually take, if they’re misled, take shortcuts, and how that changes over time - other than asking of course.

I’m not scared for my job. It already changed the field and industry, but not in a net quality productivity gain. And will continue to in one way or another. There are many parts of and surrounding software development that it can’t do well.

Update - 13/03/2026 11:10 UTC - The Lutris creator has restored the Claude attribution, with a comment noting “Since it’s such a big fuss, I’m putting the Claude attribution back”.

I obviously don’t know your environment, but I don’t think a manager needs access or knowledge to git to effectively manage teams, hear and understand team member concerns, and to steer guidelines and guardrails.

I appreciate your comment, even when many others downvote it. Honest experiences like this provide context and should always be upvoted in my eyes.

You didn’t even make any claims about effectiveness or usefulness. Downvotes like these make me sad and make me feel like this is an unwelcoming community in general, where you can’t have open and honest discussions.

Some, maybe many, developers use and want to use AI even without management pushing it.

I’m skeptical and see limited usefulness, but I’ve also heard seemingly different sentiments from colleagues.

Seems similar to Jupyter/Polyglot Notebooks, but focused on APIs.

For context, I looked Bruno up

Bruno is a Git-friendly and offline-first open-source API client aimed at revolutionizing the status quo represented by tools like Postman and Insomnia.

Voiden lists Bruno on their comparison page as well

if I could stay later when there’s broken things in prod

In general, or on this instance?

Do you have team retrospectives? That’s where I would bring it up in my team. Raise my concerns, explore and understand what team consensus is around this topic, around risks, quality, etc.

If the team consensus and/or management consensus is YOLO - then I try to protect myself from personal investment and going beyond contractual obligations. Because I already know what will come and how it will negatively affect me personally.

It’s possible a honest discussion with management about goals and risks could lead to clarified guidelines, requirements, and goals. If it doesn’t, I’d probably be looking for a better job/environment. Because I’ll be miserable if colleagues YOLO, no matter how careful I am personally.

That sounds so much more useful than their website self description.

Some people are more receptive to these kinds of things than others. Not only in terms of open mind but also how they are able to apply it (or capable of applying it?).

I wish agreeing on intentions and improvements in terms of scoping and description would be met. Same with unnecessary, obvious issues showing up costing review time and iterations. I just don’t get how these are issues - but they are - for or with some people.

I never thought I would move away from FOSS/AGPL by default. The more I read about this issue, the more I consider providing free services instead of FOSSing. It’s a shame.

FOSS is still important and necessary to a degree, for auditability and self-hostability, very important for security and control, even as a conscious/careful user.

Maybe this puts us more towards “pay to free the code” or something, so there is at least some compensation. Won’t make verbatim regenerated AGPL to MIT any less hurtful though.

If you publish a free service, at least they’re not feeding from your code too.

Tragic.

I find “from scratch” a questionable claim as well. The model was probably trained on the code it is supposed to replace. Interfacing with the concrete tests and interfaces makes the result even more likely to be and puts it conceptually closer to the original code fed as training data.

What is TrueNAS?

TrueNAS is a high performance data platform for managing any type of data, delivered through turnkey self-healing storage appliances and expert around-the-clock support.

AI-generated art not being copyrightable doesn’t necessarily mean AI-generated art can’t violate original copyright, though.

This is not about AI-generated code being relicensed to different AI-generated code. It’s about the original licensed code being relicensed or otherwise violated through AI-generated code.

, so it’s in the public domain and they’re free to do with it whatever they want, and they would legally be right.

What do you base this “all AI code is public domain by legal definition” on?

Being asked to gesture words I don’t know, or Nierenfunktionsstörung and other long German words like that 😅☠️

The need to manually download and load a lib and then send the results manually via email is somewhat of a hassle, unfortunately.

A meta analysis is an interesting reaction to, or should I say founded in, the post title. But we better let go.

abstracting away determinism /s