alt Hacker NewsCode is code. It either does the job or doesn't. If there is nothing that could convince you that AI generated code is trustworthy (for whatever definition of trust) then this is an article of faith, not a rational position.
Replies
Disagree, it’s already a leap of faith to trust even human code (which is why we try to prove code, or at the very minimum create guardrails with tests). Human reasoning itself is under doubt. It’s even more of a leap of faith (>>) to trust code generated by AI reasoning (which I can only currently call “homunculus reasoning,” it’s not inferior but it’s just got the probabilistic aspect of reasoning). People who YOLO their work to Al are practicing a different form of faith. I like knowing what my code does, and making correct predictions about it. A mental model is very important. My position is very rational, yours is faith-based. This is a technology that has many cool uses, but this is not one of those uses (in 2026). Unless the author can convince me they have as good of a mental model of this rewrite as the makers of the original source code. Maybe they do, I’m sure they would run circles around me, but I need the confidence that this isn’t going to wake me up at 3am because of some bug. And the only way I know that about PG is because I trust the creators.
> Code is code. It either does the job or doesn't.
Surely that is not the only dimension that matters when evaluating software. Maintainability and readability, for example, are crucial for any long-lived project.