zlacker

[return to "My AI skeptic friends are all nuts"]
1. pie_fl+33[view] [source] 2025-06-02 21:28:54
>>tablet+(OP)
I have one very specific retort to the 'you are still responsible' point. High school kids write lots of notes. The notes frequently never get read, but the performance is worse without them: the act of writing them embeds them into your head. I allegedly know how to use a debugger, but I haven't in years: but for a number I could count on my fingers, nearly every bug report I have gotten I know exactly down to the line of code where it comes from, because I wrote it or something next to it (or can immediately ask someone who probably did). You don't get that with AI. The codebase is always new. Everything must be investigated carefully. When stuff slips through code review, even if it is a mistake you might have made, you would remember that you made it. When humans do not do the work, humans do not accrue the experience. (This may still be a good tradeoff, I haven't run any numbers. But it's not such an obvious tradeoff as TFA implies.)
◧◩
2. sublin+f4[view] [source] 2025-06-02 21:35:12
>>pie_fl+33
I have to completely agree with this and nobody says this enough.

This tradeoff of unfamiliarity with the codebase is a very well understood problem for decades. Maintaining a project is 99% of the time spent on a successful project.

In my opinion though, having AI write the initial code is just putting most people in a worse situation with almost no upside long term.

◧◩◪
3. Curren+v8[view] [source] 2025-06-02 22:00:06
>>sublin+f4
I agree I'm bullish on AI for coding generally, but I am curious how they'd get around this problem. Even if they can code at super human level, then you just get rarer super human bugs. Or is another AI going to debug it? Unless this loop is basically fail proof, does the human's job just becoming debugging the hardest things to debug (or at least a blindspot of the AI)
◧◩◪◨
4. ethagn+8A[view] [source] 2025-06-03 01:26:48
>>Curren+v8
I haven't seen enough mention of using these tools to generate formal verification specs for their output, like TLA+. Of course, you're stuck with the same problem of having to verify the specs but you'll always be playing this game and it'd seem like this would be one of best, most reassuring ways to do so.

I'll have the look into this some more but I'm very curious about what the current state of the art is. I'm guessing it's not great because so few people do this in the first place -- because it's so tedious -- and there's probably not nearly enough training data for it to be practical to generate specs for a JavaScript GQL app or whatever these things are best at generating.

[go to top]