Clickbait title. This is in the context of competitive coding, which is a very specific and constrained programming exercise with a time limit. Which is not at all comparable to real world software development.
Eh. That’s like saying speed chess “is not at all comparable” to chess. There’s differences but it’s the same game. In this case speed coding still relies on the programmers understanding of the problem. There’s just usually less edge cases that you have to handle (usually input can be read in a less safe way because it’s in a specific format, and others)
It’s more like comparing a review of Chapter 1 to a book report.
We know a computer is faster at things. It relies on that to perform iterations, overcoming the core shortfall of actual intelligence. Whereas the ideas a human gets are established almost instantly, especially with experience, but they perform slower.
Literally, this is the “development” in software development.
It’s not the same game at all. A single purpose piece of code does not have the same considerations as a large software application. It’s more like one is speed chess and the other is actual armies on a battlefield.
Are you better than AI at coding though?
Competition shows human is still better than AI at coding – just
When I originally saw this report on another source, the key standout for me was how many people were beaten by the AI, and the fact the winner was 5% ahead, which really is a small margin. It was being touted as “Yay we beat the AI!” without acknowledging that there were a lot of people that lost to it.
Not faster though
