• Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is my biggest concern. I’m in a position where (potentially in the near future) I see AI being used as an excuse to do work quicker so we can focus on other things more but still have to review the AI response before agreeing/signing off. Reviewing for accuracy takes just as long as doing it yourself when it’s strongly regulated and it comes down to revisions and document numbers. Much less making a sound argument that actually is up to date with that documentation. So either I trust the AI short cut and open myself up to errors, or redo all the work for them. No gain in time efficiency with shorter timelines. I’d rather make something and have it flag things that I can check so I’m more sure of my own work. What I do shouldn’t be faster, but it can be more error free. It would take a lot of training and updating of training with each iteration of documentation change. I could be the slave of change, with more expectations, with no actual improvement of the tools I have (in fact more risk of issues with the tools being used).

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m in agile development, in a reasonably safe-from-AI position (scrum master).

      There has already been a trial of software development by AI, with different generative AIs in each agile role; and it worked.

      Bard claims to be able to write unit tests

      I can imagine many IT jobs becoming less skilled