JetBrains is integrating AI into its IDEs with a new "AI Assistant" offering features like code generation, documentation assistance, commit message composition, and more. This assistant leverages a large language model and connects to various services including local and cloud-based ones. A new free tier provides limited usage of the AI Assistant, while paid subscriptions offer expanded access. This initial release marks the beginning of JetBrains' exploration into AI-powered development, with more features and refinements planned for the future.
Actionate brings the power of GitHub Actions directly into JetBrains IDEs like IntelliJ IDEA and PyCharm. It allows developers to run and debug individual workflow jobs locally, simplifying the development and testing process for GitHub Actions. This eliminates the need for constant commits and push cycles to verify workflow changes, streamlining development and providing a more efficient workflow within the familiar IDE environment. By leveraging the local development environment, Actionate helps catch errors early and accelerates the iteration cycle for creating and refining GitHub Actions workflows.
Hacker News users generally expressed interest in Actionate, finding the concept intriguing and useful for automating tasks within JetBrains IDEs. Some questioned the practical advantages over existing solutions like using the command line directly or scripting within the IDEs. Concerns were raised about performance overhead and potential instability due to relying on Docker. A suggestion was made to support background execution for improved usability. Others pointed out that IDE features like macros and built-in task runners could often fulfill similar automation needs. The security implications of running arbitrary code pulled from GitHub Actions were also discussed. Overall, while acknowledging the tool's potential, many commenters advocated for simpler solutions for common IDE automation tasks.
Summary of Comments ( 33 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43704579
Hacker News users generally expressed skepticism and concern about JetBrains' AI features. Many questioned the value proposition of a "coding agent" compared to existing copilot-style tools, particularly given the potential performance impact on already resource-intensive IDEs. Some were wary of vendor lock-in and the potential for JetBrains to exploit user code for training their models, despite reassurances about privacy. Others saw the AI features as gimmicky and distracting, preferring improvements to core IDE functionality. A few commenters expressed cautious optimism, hoping the AI could assist with boilerplate and repetitive tasks, but the overall sentiment was one of reserved judgment.
The Hacker News post discussing JetBrains' blog post about AI features in their IDEs generated a significant number of comments, many of which expressed skepticism and concern.
A recurring theme was the worry about the potential for AI assistance to create a generation of developers who lack fundamental understanding of the code they produce. Commenters envisioned a scenario where developers become overly reliant on AI generated code, leading to a decline in problem-solving skills and a deeper comprehension of underlying principles. This dependence, they argued, could be detrimental in the long run, especially when faced with debugging complex issues or needing to optimize performance. One commenter likened it to using a calculator without understanding basic arithmetic.
Several commenters also questioned the practicality and usefulness of the AI features, particularly for experienced developers. They argued that while code generation might be helpful for boilerplate or repetitive tasks, it's unlikely to be beneficial for more complex or nuanced coding scenarios. Some suggested that the AI might even hinder productivity by generating suboptimal code or requiring extensive modification. The sentiment was that experienced developers already possess efficient workflows and ingrained knowledge, making the AI assistance feel redundant or even disruptive.
Another concern raised was the potential "hallucinations" or inaccuracies produced by AI code generation. Commenters pointed out that relying on AI-generated code without thorough verification could introduce bugs and security vulnerabilities. They emphasized the importance of careful review and testing, which could negate any time savings gained from using the AI features in the first place.
Some commenters also expressed apprehension about the implications for the job market. While acknowledging that AI assistance could potentially increase productivity, they also worried that it could lead to a decrease in demand for developers, especially entry-level positions.
There was a more optimistic viewpoint from some, who saw the AI features as potentially valuable tools for learning and experimentation. They suggested that the AI could help beginners grasp new concepts and explore different coding approaches more easily. However, even these more positive comments often came with caveats about the importance of understanding the underlying principles and not solely relying on the AI.
Finally, a few commenters expressed frustration with the marketing language used by JetBrains, finding it overly hyped and vague. They desired more concrete details about the specific capabilities and limitations of the AI features, rather than broad promises of increased productivity and smarter assistance. They also questioned the long-term pricing strategy and the potential for vendor lock-in with these new AI-powered tools.