If the money is supposed to go towards people preventing damage, wouldn't that include devs?
> How much of this is due to liability law and how much is due to natural aspects of the relevant technology?
I can only speak from my own experience in biotech, but moving slowly was due to a lot of compliance box-ticking that didn't actually contribute a lot to either safety, reducing defect rate or meeting requirements. Conway's law applied: since bio engineers and lab techs move slowly, so did the software org.
With an AI assistant, in the best scenario, you'll get a "wisdom of crowds" effect on implementation details and program architecture. At worst, you'll get a lot of opinionated code bloat and anti-patterns as suggestions.
For most backend programming jobs, the challenge is not in writing complex code but figuring out what the business wants, needs and should have in the first place and distinguishing between them. Figuring out how to integrate with existing systems, processes, fiefdoms and code. Knowing when to say yes and no, how to make code future proof, etc. This is a task fundamentally unfit for what we currently call "AI", because it's not actually intelligent or creative yet.
On the frontend, it becomes even more nebulous. Maybe Copilot can suggest common themes like Bootstrap classes for a form, CSS properties, the basic file structure and implementations for components in an SPA, etc. As I see it, the main challenge is in UX there, not the boilerplate, which again makes it about understanding the user, figuring out how to make UI feel intuitive, etc. Again: unfit for current AI.
I cannot offer any opinion on the utility for actually complex, FANG-level code, for lack of experience.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I suppose they mean competitors like Samsung, Motorola, Huawei and so on. It depends on whether you see a competitor as someone owning an app store or someone selling a physical device.
I'm not sure "home markets" are really relevant for global entities like multinational companies.
If the money is supposed to go towards people preventing damage, wouldn't that include devs?
> How much of this is due to liability law and how much is due to natural aspects of the relevant technology?
I can only speak from my own experience in biotech, but moving slowly was due to a lot of compliance box-ticking that didn't actually contribute a lot to either safety, reducing defect rate or meeting requirements. Conway's law applied: since bio engineers and lab techs move slowly, so did the software org.