A recent post on Hack-a-Day about having an AI agent refine a sketch of a script into something production-ready somehow made me think of the Ship of Theseus. If you write the basic algorithm and initial proof of concept but an AI agent optimizes and adds error handling and more, is it still yours?

The script writer had a goal and got something working in short order but, oh, the details! Programs that persist (or crash!), servers that are unavailable or give inconsistent answers. If 90% of programming is error handling, who really wants to write that 90%? (The other 90%, of course, is user interface.)

I’ve written about having an agent do the grunt work and that’s exactly what this developer did. He had the agent fill in error handling and flesh out some features.

This is a good example of how I think these tools work best. The AI handles the implementation, edge cases, tests, and documentation, while the human provides design input and flags anything awkward or that doesn’t fit the intended experience.

This is a workflow I’ve found myself using a lot recently. I sketch something — in a script or simple program, or even as a brief requirements statement — and let the AI build it out. We work together to refine it. Sometimes it’s a realSometimes the agent goes off for a while and comes back with something to review. I look at it, use it a little, offer some critique or suggestion, and we repeat until done.

Come to think of it, this is similar to how I have often worked with interns or junior developers: I give direction and feedback but type a minority of the lines, if any at all. (In process as in product, everything old is new again.)

I’m happy for the help. It lets me concentrate on the big picture. But is the result my work? I’ll leave that to the philosophers.