Sorry but no.

It’s good when what you are trying to do has been done in the past by thousand of people (thanks to the free training data). But it’s really bad for new use case. After all it’s a glorified and expensive auto-complete tool trained on code they parsed. It’s not magic, it’s math.

But you don’t get intelligence, creativity from these tools. It’s math! Math is the least creative domain on earth. Since when being a programmer is just typing portion of code from boilerplate / examples from internet?

It’s the logical thinking, taking into account all the parameters and constraints, breaking problems into piece of code, checking it, testing it, deploying it, supporting it.

Ok, programming goal is to solve a problem. But usually not all the parameters of the problem can be reduced to its mathematical form.

IA are far from being able to do that and the ratio gain/cost is not proven at all. These companies are so committed to AI (in term of money invested) that THEY MUST make you use their AI products, whatever its quality. They even use a marketing term to hide their product bad answer: hallucinations. Hallucination is just a fancy word to not say: totally wrong.

Do you find normal to buy a solution that never produces 100% good results (more around 20% of failure)?

In my industry, this IA trend (pushed mainly from managers not knowing what really is programming and of course “AI”) generate a lot of bad quality code from our junior devs. And it’s not something i want to push in production.

In fact, a lot of PoC around ML never goes from the R&D phase to the real production. It’s too risky for the business (as human life could be impacted).