I’ve seen no evidence of that so far. I also fail to see how writing code practices are related to the review and quality control process. These things aren’t linked in any way that I’m aware of.
The only studies I’m aware of used tiny samples and produced muddled conclusions. If you have some conclusive empirical research then do feel free to share it though. Meanwhile, using LLMs doesn’t mean doing less, it just means focusing on different things. The skill deficit here is the same kind as the skill deficit people have using punch cards or writing assembly by hand today. As things become automated, different things become relevant and that’s what people shift their attention to.
Right, the question is, if they’re changing the writing code practices, do you think there might be any change in the reviewing process?
I’ve seen no evidence of that so far. I also fail to see how writing code practices are related to the review and quality control process. These things aren’t linked in any way that I’m aware of.
The ability to comprehend code underlies both of those and is trained by both. Doing less of one reduces your training.
LLM use leads to skill deficits, it’s shown up in studies but also just, use it or lose it.
The only studies I’m aware of used tiny samples and produced muddled conclusions. If you have some conclusive empirical research then do feel free to share it though. Meanwhile, using LLMs doesn’t mean doing less, it just means focusing on different things. The skill deficit here is the same kind as the skill deficit people have using punch cards or writing assembly by hand today. As things become automated, different things become relevant and that’s what people shift their attention to.