I'm the first to say that AI will not replace human coders.

But I don't understand this attempt to tell companies/persons that are successfully using AI that no they really aren't.

In my opinion, if they feel they're using AI successfully, the goal should be to learn from that.

I don't understand this need to tell individuals who say they are successfully using AI that, "no you aren't."

It feels like a form of denial.

Like someone saying, "I refuse to accept that this could work for you, no matter what you say."

They probably use AI for writing tests, small internal tools/scripts, building generic frontends and quick prototypes/demos/proofs of concept. That could easily be that 25% of the code. And modern LLMs are pretty okayish with that.

I believe most people use AI to help them quickly figure out how to use a library or an API without having to read all their (often out dated) documentation instead of helping them solve some mathematical challenge

We are sorely lacking a "Make Computer Science a Science" movement, the tech lead's blurb is par for the course, talking about "SWE productivity" with no reference to scientific inquiry and a foundational understanding of safety, correctness, verification, validation of these new LLM technologies.

> Can you spot all the problems?

You were probably being rhetorical, but there are two problems:

- `p = 2` should be outside the loop

- `prime_factors.append(n)` appends `1` onto the end of the list for no reason

With those two changes I'm pretty sure it's correct.

We collectively deride leetcoding interviews yet ask AI to flawlessly solve leetcode questions.

I bet I'd make more errors on my first try at it.