6 ms·

You're assuming that the AI is even generating anything that will make sense to a human. It seems inevitable we'll reach the point that for SaaS the AI will do

You're assuming that the AI is even generating anything that will make sense to a human. It seems inevitable we'll reach the point that for SaaS the AI will do everything directly based some internal model it has of what it believes the requirements are (e.g. it will be capable of acting just like a live web server), whereas for desktop and mobile apps, while that paradigm still remains relevant, it will generate the compiled package for distribution. And I imagine it would be unrealistic to attempt reverse engineering it. Fixing bugs will be done by telling the AI to refine its model.

raincole 4y ago
> It seems inevitable we'll reach the point that... It's inevitable that we'll reach AGI. It's inevitable that humans will extinct. Everything you described is not how today's AI works. It's not even a stretch, it's just pure sci-fi.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I'll be genuinely surprised if we don't have tools with that sort of capability within 10 years, quite possibly much sooner.
- camdenreslink 4y ago
  I don’t think it is inevitable we’ll reach AGI. I think that question is very much up in the air at the moment.
  - raincole 4y ago
    My point is "It's inevitable that {scifi_scenario}" always sounds kinda plausible but doesnt necessarily means anything.
omnicognate 4y ago
Are you arguing that LLMs already provide the technology to do this or are you arguing that it "seems inevitable" to you in the sense that somebody might think it "seems inevitable" that humans will some day travel to the stars, despite doing so requiring technological capabilities significantly beyond what we have yet developed?
- wizofaus 4y ago
  It doesn't strike me as being much of a leap from what we have already, certainly not compared with traveling to the stars.
uh_uh 4y ago
> You're assuming that the AI is even generating anything that will make sense to a human. Why wouldn't it? It's trained on code generated by humans and already generates code that is more readable than the output of many humans me included.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  But why would anyone bother with using AI to generate human readable code if the AI can generate the final desired behavior directly, either on-the-fly or as executable machine code?
  - lelandbatey 4y ago
    Because the AI's, at least right now, can't generate/change code so that it correctly does what's expected with the confidence intervals we expect. I've tried to get it to happen, and it just doesn't. As long as that's true, we'll need to somehow get the correctness to where it needs to be, and that's going to require a person.
    - jiggawatts 4y ago
      A lot of people have already figured out at some tricks to improving code generation. You can fairly easily update the “next token” choice with a syntax check filter. LLMs like ChatGPT provide a selection of “likely” options, not a single perfect choice. Simply filter the top-n recommendations mechanically for validity. This will improve output a lot. Similarly, backtracking can be used to fix larger semantic errors. Last but not least, any scenario where a test case is available can be utilised to automatically iterate the LLM over the same problem until it gets it right. For example, feed it compiler error messages until it fixes the remaining errors. This will guarantee output that compiles, but it may still be the wrong solution. As the LLMs get smarter they will do better. Also, they can be fine tuned for specific problems automatically because the labels are available! We can easily determine if a piece of code compiles, or if it makes a unit test pass.
      - 4y ago
henry2023 4y ago
At least permabans are going to be more fun
zizee 4y ago
> what it believes the requirements are It will have to describe these requirements in a way that a human can understand, and verify. The language will have to be unambiguous and structured. A human will need to be able to read that language, build up a mental model, and understand it is correct, or know the way to make corrections. Who do you think that person will be? Hint: it will be a specialist that knows how to think in a structured, logical way.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Sure, I agree with that. But it will very different to how programming is done today, and I'd suggest there'll be a lower bar to becoming capable of formulating such requirements and ensuring the software works as expected than there is now.

raincole 4y ago

> It seems inevitable we'll reach the point that... It's inevitable that we'll reach AGI. It's inevitable that humans will extinct. Everything you described is not how today's AI works. It's not even a stretch, it's just pure sci-fi.

wizofaus 4y ago
I'll be genuinely surprised if we don't have tools with that sort of capability within 10 years, quite possibly much sooner.
camdenreslink 4y ago
I don’t think it is inevitable we’ll reach AGI. I think that question is very much up in the air at the moment.
- raincole 4y ago
  My point is "It's inevitable that {scifi_scenario}" always sounds kinda plausible but doesnt necessarily means anything.

omnicognate 4y ago

Are you arguing that LLMs already provide the technology to do this or are you arguing that it "seems inevitable" to you in the sense that somebody might think it "seems inevitable" that humans will some day travel to the stars, despite doing so requiring technological capabilities significantly beyond what we have yet developed?

wizofaus 4y ago
It doesn't strike me as being much of a leap from what we have already, certainly not compared with traveling to the stars.

uh_uh 4y ago

> You're assuming that the AI is even generating anything that will make sense to a human. Why wouldn't it? It's trained on code generated by humans and already generates code that is more readable than the output of many humans me included.

wizofaus 4y ago
But why would anyone bother with using AI to generate human readable code if the AI can generate the final desired behavior directly, either on-the-fly or as executable machine code?
- lelandbatey 4y ago
  Because the AI's, at least right now, can't generate/change code so that it correctly does what's expected with the confidence intervals we expect. I've tried to get it to happen, and it just doesn't. As long as that's true, we'll need to somehow get the correctness to where it needs to be, and that's going to require a person.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    A lot of people have already figured out at some tricks to improving code generation. You can fairly easily update the “next token” choice with a syntax check filter. LLMs like ChatGPT provide a selection of “likely” options, not a single perfect choice. Simply filter the top-n recommendations mechanically for validity. This will improve output a lot. Similarly, backtracking can be used to fix larger semantic errors. Last but not least, any scenario where a test case is available can be utilised to automatically iterate the LLM over the same problem until it gets it right. For example, feed it compiler error messages until it fixes the remaining errors. This will guarantee output that compiles, but it may still be the wrong solution. As the LLMs get smarter they will do better. Also, they can be fine tuned for specific problems automatically because the labels are available! We can easily determine if a piece of code compiles, or if it makes a unit test pass.
    - 4y ago

henry2023 4y ago

At least permabans are going to be more fun

zizee 4y ago

> what it believes the requirements are It will have to describe these requirements in a way that a human can understand, and verify. The language will have to be unambiguous and structured. A human will need to be able to read that language, build up a mental model, and understand it is correct, or know the way to make corrections. Who do you think that person will be? Hint: it will be a specialist that knows how to think in a structured, logical way.

wizofaus 4y ago
Sure, I agree with that. But it will very different to how programming is done today, and I'd suggest there'll be a lower bar to becoming capable of formulating such requirements and ensuring the software works as expected than there is now.