Even the discussion side has been pretty meh in my mind. I was looking into a bug in a codebase filled with Claude output and for funsies decided to ask Claude about it. It basically generated a "This thing here could be a problem but there is manual validation for it" response, and when I looked, that manual validation were nowhere to be found.
There's so much half-working AI-generated code everywhere that I'd feel ashamed if I had to ever meet our customers.
I think the thing that gives me the most value is code review. So basically I first review my code myself, then have Claude review it and then submit for someone else to approve.
I don't discuss actual code with ChatGPT, just concepts. Like "if I have an issue and my algo looks like this, how can I debug it effectively in gdb?", or "how do I reduce lock contention if I have to satisfy A/B/...".
Maybe it's just because my side projects are fairly elementary.
And I agree that AI is pretty good at code review, especially if the code contains complex business logic.
There's so much half-working AI-generated code everywhere that I'd feel ashamed if I had to ever meet our customers.
I think the thing that gives me the most value is code review. So basically I first review my code myself, then have Claude review it and then submit for someone else to approve.