Compare conventional and AI-assisted programming, and practise relative clauses and contrast connectors.
Should our team adopt AI coding assistants? Below is a short comparison to support the decision.
Conventional programming gives developers full control: every line is written and understood by a human, which makes debugging and code review straightforward. However, development is slower, and routine tasks such as writing boilerplate code take valuable time.
AI-assisted tools such as GitHub Copilot suggest code in real time. Developers who use them report that they complete routine tasks up to 40 per cent faster. Whereas conventional programming depends entirely on the developer's knowledge, AI assistants draw on millions of open-source examples. This creates two risks: the suggested code may contain bugs the developer does not notice, and there are open questions about intellectual property, since suggestions can resemble existing licensed code. Recommendation: adopt Copilot for internal tools, but keep strict human code review for everything that ships to customers.
Review your answers below, then send them to your teacher.
Leave this empty if you don't want feedback. If you enter your email, your teacher will reply with feedback on your answers.
Click the button below to send your answers directly to your teacher.