Beyond the 70%: Maximizing the human 30% of AI-assisted coding

Is anyone actually getting anything out of AI assisted coding? I find AI autocomplete especially horrible, though the chat interface has been helpful in preventing me from actually learning obscure bash parameters.<p>In all seriousness though, 2024 DORA report shows that for every 25% of coders adopting AI coding within an organization, delivery throughput reduces by 1.5% and delivery stability reduces by a whopping 7.2%.<p>(you can sign up to get the report here[1], sorry I don&#x27;t have a direct link to provide)<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cloud.google.com&#x2F;devops&#x2F;state-of-devops" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cloud.google.com&#x2F;devops&#x2F;state-of-devops</a>

AI isn&#x27;t &quot;astonishingly good&quot; at 70% of things. I have to manually check everything it produces and 90% of time it gets something wrong.<p>I feel like i am living in an alternate reality than these ppl. wtf am i am i missing here. so frustrating reading these sorts of articles.

there is this weird addictive thing with AI coding. found myself just sending prompts over and over and hoping the next one would finally get it right. sending a prompt and going and doing something else, but mostly end up with a huge mess

I think Cursor etc are great for rapid prototyping and cut down the dev cycle from months to days without the need for PMs , the scaling is where the expertise would come in... whether this methodology would work on a complex codebase is debatable, but for startups looking to go from 0 to 1, this is a boon