---
title: "Just a few months ago, AI coding was described as an overblown \"auto-complete\",…"
date: 2026-02-13T20:02:18.339Z
author: Ricardo Mendes
url: https://rmendes.net/notes/2026/02/13/40d1f/
type: notes
ai_text_level: "0"
tokens: 192
content_signal: ai-train=yes, search=yes, ai-input=yes
---

# Just a few months ago, AI coding was described as an overblown "auto-complete",…

Just a few months ago, AI coding was described as an overblown "auto-complete", auto-complete has been around for functions and classes and what not since...I don't know, years ? imagine if PR were rejected because the developer had used auto-complete to help him/her write a piece of code, or worst, a bug fix? 

I fully understand that no humans should be tasked to review spam PR & spam automated "contributions" but if a contribution is "generated" by Claude and/with a Human, in my view, it is as much valid as a purely human contribution. Code is Code, Improvement is Improvement. 

I bet this will be seen as completely outdated in just a few months, some will resist, will even fight against human+ai contributions, but they are only going against the tide.