3 ms·

So really, you can just decide for yourself then Even if you can understand what the proof proves (not a given) do you personally understand the actual require

• seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Building software is a conversation right? Your specification starts out vague, the AI makes a bunch of assumptions, and then you just say “oh, I really didn’t want that”, wash rinse and repeat.
  • smaudet 3y ago
    I'm not convinced this is adequate, your specifications will be come rather unweildy. If you employed this approach, I would want to pair it at a minimum with a test suite. Even then, how do you know that your system (covered by hill climbing suites of tests that pass), has correct behavior for all things you didn't specify? You don't. Better to build from the ground up formally than fight with "AI" that probably got it worse than wrong first try.
    • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      You don’t anyways now. You just have some assurance, not total assurance, with current practices. Many people will find something conversational (in that you have some documentation about what it did and can correct assumptions) good enough because it brings close enough to the human status quo. I hope your pessimism is founded though, I would really like to see programming by human advance rather than the whole thing be taken over by AI. Hybrid approaches are also possible (AI in the loop but not in the core position).