Consider Adding Inline Comments

Claiming you've been using ChatGPT since 1996 is like saying you had WiFi in the Middle Ages. For the youngsters: that's Courage the Cowardly Dog typing on a chunky beige PC from when the internet made dial-up sounds that haunted your nightmares. Back then, "AI assistance" meant asking your roommate if they remembered the syntax for a for-loop while they were in the shower. The closest thing to ChatGPT was probably Clippy, and even he couldn't help you reverse a binary tree.

The modern developer's digital mirror match! GitHub Copilot is shaking hands with itself in the ultimate AI narcissism loop. When your code assistant both writes and reviews your code, it's basically just patting itself on the back. "Great job me, I approve of what I wrote!" This is peak programming efficiency—why waste time having humans review code when the robot can just high-five itself? The circle of AI life is complete. Next up: GitHub Copilot creating pull requests for problems it invented while reviewing its own code.

When you ask two AI models the same basic math question and get completely opposite answers. Deepseek correctly identifies that 9.9 > 9.11 (treating them as decimals), while ChatGPT somehow thinks 9.11 > 9.9. This is why we still have jobs. For now. Nothing says "trust me with your critical systems" like failing elementary school math. Somewhere, a software engineer is using this screenshot in their slide deck titled "Why Human QA Still Matters".

Just sitting back with my popcorn watching the AI hype train derail in slow motion. All these devs who pivoted their entire careers to "prompt engineering" are about to discover what us old-timers already know - there's no shortcut to understanding the fundamentals. When the hallucinations pile up and the VC money dries out, guess who'll be debugging the mess? The same people who've been writing actual code for decades. Munching carrots while watching careers burn is my new hobby.

Nothing says "I understand your job" like a boss who thinks you're just sitting around waiting to review code written by the CEO's latest AI toy. The little robot asking "What is my purpose?" only to learn it's basically a glorified security audit tool for executive vanity projects is peak corporate absurdity. It's that special kind of existential dread when you realize both you and the robot are trapped in the same ridiculous hierarchy - except the robot at least got a straightforward answer about its pointless existence.

The one thing AI can do that humans can't: admit they're wrong without having an existential crisis first. After 15 years in tech, I've seen senior devs argue for hours defending broken code rather than just say "oops, my bad." Meanwhile, AI is over here like "You caught me! Let me fix that!" with zero ego damage. Maybe the real singularity isn't when machines get smarter than us, but when they get more emotionally mature.