The tech debt always gets paid one way or another. Either preemptively, as part of ongoing maintenance; or after a data breach in the subsequent lawsuit and settlement; or in the slow, inexorable trickle of increased infrastructure costs and lost business from slow dependencies and ineffectual bandaid solutions.
Of course but the cost can be mitigated. I’ve seen an AI built project and the outcome is that you pretty much have to continue using AI to continue development because it’s borderline incomprehensible for humans. When AI fails to continue development you scrap the entire project and start from scratch.
I imagine all companies that allowed AI to go wild in their codebase have a lot of components that need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
In theory, completely rewriting legacy software with AI could be a great thing - doing so every 3 or 4 years, allowing newer and better AI to tackle the task, optimizing for every development made in technology or standards.
However, this still requires human minds to define, guide, and verify these projects. AI opens up possibilities for better development, but executives seem determined to fritter away such potential by axing the human element.
I know what you mean, but the tech debt problem will never get resolved.
The tech debt always gets paid one way or another. Either preemptively, as part of ongoing maintenance; or after a data breach in the subsequent lawsuit and settlement; or in the slow, inexorable trickle of increased infrastructure costs and lost business from slow dependencies and ineffectual bandaid solutions.
Of course but the cost can be mitigated. I’ve seen an AI built project and the outcome is that you pretty much have to continue using AI to continue development because it’s borderline incomprehensible for humans. When AI fails to continue development you scrap the entire project and start from scratch.
I imagine all companies that allowed AI to go wild in their codebase have a lot of components that need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
In theory, completely rewriting legacy software with AI could be a great thing - doing so every 3 or 4 years, allowing newer and better AI to tackle the task, optimizing for every development made in technology or standards.
However, this still requires human minds to define, guide, and verify these projects. AI opens up possibilities for better development, but executives seem determined to fritter away such potential by axing the human element.
It is like a certain story…
You forgot that AI cannot “rewrite legacy software”.
Otherwise it’s a nice thing to fantasize about 😁