S* Archived Message Posted by Illiniphil on February 21, 2025, 14:47:04, in reply to "I*" Previous Message Previous Message Previous Message Previous Message Previous Message Previous Message Previous Message Covering for a coworker while he's gone for 3 weeks. Coworker is newer to the general field, and is big into ChatGPT and the other stupid AI nonsense. I just had to fix some completely wrong code he wrote and has been using for a while. I'm about 75% that he tried to just have some AI model write the query and then he didn't really double check it. ALso possible that he didn't know what he's doing, but this guy has been around long enough to know better. Still, the mistakes look AI-ish Would you confront them on return, or just fix it and move on? Message Thread: | This response ↓ What would you do - work AI edition - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:11:39 I'd blast a hole in his ass.* - Stu February 21, 2025, 13:41:40 G* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 13:52:54 I* - DocWalk20 February 21, 2025, 14:01:48 G* - DocWalk20 February 21, 2025, 14:01:59 G* - ibdoc February 21, 2025, 14:04:44 I* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 14:25:34 S* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 14:47:04 G* - Illiniphil February 22, 2025, 11:06:30 That's your solution to everything.* - Warrin'_Illini February 21, 2025, 13:43:18 if something works why change it? - IlliniSax05 February 21, 2025, 13:51:32 I bet that's your philosophy on underpants* - Sammich February 21, 2025, 13:56:48 LMFCO* - Jackie February 21, 2025, 14:26:19 Blasting a hole in the ass, or not changing them?* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 14:26:08 Did you have anything to do with the DAX AI dictation pilot?* - ibdoc February 21, 2025, 13:40:31 Do you have a practice of code reviews? - illinibone February 21, 2025, 12:49:01 We don't, it'd really be hard due to the specialized nature of the work - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:53:48 We have mandatory peer reviews of the code for all reporting as part of the approval workflow - GrandmotherPearlsJam February 21, 2025, 13:19:52 I'd be in favor of it just to out the AI people.* - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 13:25:49 Sounds like you need code review more than ever if everyone thinks it’s unreadable. - doubledown February 21, 2025, 13:00:59 100% agree - illinibone February 21, 2025, 13:12:03 what bonbon said vvv* - bbonb February 21, 2025, 12:33:26 why embarrass the person? - bbonb February 21, 2025, 12:30:09 I didn't know you were a code guy. Nice.* - Warrin'_Illini February 21, 2025, 12:26:07 Code-ish, I guess? - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:47:45 I should learn to code.* - Warrin'_Illini February 21, 2025, 12:57:12 Unless they work for you, I’d fix it and move on - DT February 21, 2025, 12:16:49 Probably will, this is just a giant pet peeve of mine - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:25:11 Yes. You have to check the output. Could be a good opportunity to implement a policy/procedure * - torinese February 22, 2025, 9:43:48 AI / LLMs can be amazing tools for use in coding. Got to use it responsibly / appropriately though. - DocWalk20 February 21, 2025, 12:38:43 I'd passive aggressively send a question referencing the code. "Hey I'm trying to fix this code that - doubledown February 21, 2025, 12:16:35 What is there to confront him on? Are you not allowed to use AI? - gvibes February 21, 2025, 12:14:43 Maybe confront is the wrong word - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:16:28 Fix it and let them know you fixed it for them. They owe you now. * - haighter February 21, 2025, 12:14:11   Searching