zlacker

>>strayd+(OP)
>The people really leading AI coding right now (and I’d put myself near the front, though not all the way there) don’t read code. They manage the things that produce code.

I can’t imagine any other example where people voluntarily move for a black box approach.

Imagine taking a picture on autoshot mode and refusing to look at it. If the client doesn’t like it because it’s too bright, tweak the settings and shoot again, but never look at the output.

What is the logic here? Because if you can read code, I can’t imagine poking the result with black box testing being faster.

Are these people just handing off the review process to others? Are they unable to read code and hiding it? Why would you handicap yourself this way?

>>kace91+Ek
> What is the logic here? Because if you can read code, I can’t imagine poking the result with black box testing being faster.

The AI also writes the black box tests, what am I missing here?

>>seanmc+ps
>The AI also writes the black box tests, what am I missing here?

If the AI misinterpreted your intentions and/or missed something in productive code, tests are likely to reproduce rather than catch that behavior.

In other words, if “the ai is checking as well” no one is.

>>kace91+2y
That's true. Never let the AI know about the code it wrote when writing the test for sure. Write multiple tests, have an arbitrator (also AI) figure out if implementation or tests are wrong when tests fail. Have the AI heavily comment code and heavily comment tests in the language of your spec so you can manually verify if the scenarios/parts of the implementations make sense when it matters.

etc...etc...

> In other words, if “the ai is checking as well” no one is.

"I tried nothing, and nothing at all worked!"