The jargon is cool, the benefit is arguable. I know plenty of developers who are using it, but we then lose the casual chain in understanding why something works the way it does. "the bot did it" has become a common phrase at work.
Corporate are pushing it pretty hard, which in general is another warning sign (why do corporate care how many accounts are using Copilot, except to make a % meter go up, so they can look good to their bosses?). For me it provides next-to-no benefit. Any code it could write for me is trivial enough for me to write myself in the same amount of time (after getting the prompts accurate enough), and my value is in both design and root cause analysis, which any iteration of generative AI available to me pretty much sucks at.
"here's the most contextual result from Google" rarely, if ever, means it's the actual result in my line of work. I have to evaluate the result within my own codebases, plural, knowing the soft behavioural links between each one and the ramifications of changing one that depends on the other. Generative AI can't handle that amount of lateral thinking. Or, arguably, any thinking. It just regurgitates within parameters, and that in of itself is a use (like I said, some people use it, and some people even use it well, for concepting more than concrete code). But like I already said, it has very little, if any, benefit for me personally.
en.wikipedia.org
