3 ms·

"Hallucination isn't a real problem, people will always scrutinize the generated code!" Sigh...

by Nullabillity 3y ago

biesnecker 3y ago
Thorough code review is why we as an industry stopped shipping bugs.
- groby_b 3y ago
  We, as an industry, didn't stop shipping bugs. (Small example: https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/releases https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/releases) And that thorough code review prevents bugs is, at best, a debatable assertion. See e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-reviews-do-not-find-bugs-how-the-current-code-review-best-practice-slows-us-down/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-re... It finds _some_ bugs. CI/CD, and a massive investment in automated testing has probably had the largest impact in moving software quality forward. (See e.g. "Accelerate", Forsgren, Humble & Kim) Code review is an excellent tool to socialize knowledge and train up more junior engineers, but in terms of preventing bugs, it's low-value.
  - aradox66 3y ago
    The parent comment is sarcastic
    - groby_b 3y ago
      Maybe. I can't read OPs mind, and it's a common enough trope throughout the industry that I figured adding some evidence could be useful.
    - biesnecker 3y ago
      Sorry I thought that was too obvious to warrant an /s but I suppose not.
  - chaxor 3y ago
    I'm fairly certain we ship far more bugs now than we ever did. Before we had the ability to just add a patch and let the user download it, the end result needed to be very solid, because once that disk was purchased and taken home, it was static. Now less attention is paid to these things, because it's just assumed to be tomorrow's problem.
silverthorn 3y ago
Ha, I just want to clarify that the quoted text isn't actually from the README or something like that, I'm not quite that crazy. But no real argument with the concern. An LLM will generate bugs, and that may be a reason this kind of thing never makes sense in practice (isn't that an argument against copilot, too, though?).
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  As far as I understand this is worse, because it'll regenerate everything in the file every time, right? But yeah, I'm personally not comfortable with Copilot or its ilk, either.
itishappy 3y ago
Where's this from? What are you quoting?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
Where is the above quote from? If I search for it online I can only find your comment here.
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  Paraphrasing the people defending Copilot and ChatGPT when they came out.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    It would be nice to make it clear that you're not actually quoting someone when you use quotation marks to paraphrase them. My concern is that it can come across as a bit of straw-manning otherwise.
    - Nullabillity 3y ago
      Fair, though it's too late to edit now.

"Hallucination isn't a real problem, people will always scrutinize the generated code!" Sigh...

biesnecker 3y ago

Thorough code review is why we as an industry stopped shipping bugs.

groby_b 3y ago
We, as an industry, didn't stop shipping bugs. (Small example: https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/releases https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/releases) And that thorough code review prevents bugs is, at best, a debatable assertion. See e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-reviews-do-not-find-bugs-how-the-current-code-review-best-practice-slows-us-down/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-re... It finds _some_ bugs. CI/CD, and a massive investment in automated testing has probably had the largest impact in moving software quality forward. (See e.g. "Accelerate", Forsgren, Humble & Kim) Code review is an excellent tool to socialize knowledge and train up more junior engineers, but in terms of preventing bugs, it's low-value.
- aradox66 3y ago
  The parent comment is sarcastic
  - groby_b 3y ago
    Maybe. I can't read OPs mind, and it's a common enough trope throughout the industry that I figured adding some evidence could be useful.
  - biesnecker 3y ago
    Sorry I thought that was too obvious to warrant an /s but I suppose not.
- chaxor 3y ago
  I'm fairly certain we ship far more bugs now than we ever did. Before we had the ability to just add a patch and let the user download it, the end result needed to be very solid, because once that disk was purchased and taken home, it was static. Now less attention is paid to these things, because it's just assumed to be tomorrow's problem.

silverthorn 3y ago

Ha, I just want to clarify that the quoted text isn't actually from the README or something like that, I'm not quite that crazy. But no real argument with the concern. An LLM will generate bugs, and that may be a reason this kind of thing never makes sense in practice (isn't that an argument against copilot, too, though?).

Nullabillity 3y ago
As far as I understand this is worse, because it'll regenerate everything in the file every time, right? But yeah, I'm personally not comfortable with Copilot or its ilk, either.

itishappy 3y ago

Where's this from? What are you quoting?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

Where is the above quote from? If I search for it online I can only find your comment here.

Nullabillity 3y ago
Paraphrasing the people defending Copilot and ChatGPT when they came out.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  It would be nice to make it clear that you're not actually quoting someone when you use quotation marks to paraphrase them. My concern is that it can come across as a bit of straw-manning otherwise.
  - Nullabillity 3y ago
    Fair, though it's too late to edit now.