4 ms·
Linting isn't verification of correctness, and yes, you can fool the compiler, linters, etc. Work with some human interns, they are great at it. Agents will do
by someothherguyy 1y ago
Linting isn't verification of correctness, and yes, you can fool the compiler, linters, etc. Work with some human interns, they are great at it. Agents will do crazy things to get around linting errors, including removing functionality.
- fragmede 1y agohave you no tests?
- kiitos 1y agoIrrelevant, really. Tests establish a minimum threshold of acceptability, they don't (and can't) guarantee anything like overall correctness.
- tptacek 1y agoJust checking off the list of things you've determined to be irrelevant. Compiler? Nope. Linter? Nope. Test suite? Nope. How about TLA+ specifications?
- skydhash 1y agoTLA+ specs don’t verify code. They verify design. Such design can be expressed in whatever, including pseudocode (think algorithms notation in textbooks). Then you write the TLA specs that will judge if invariants are truly respected. Once you’re sure of the design, you can go and implement it, but there’s no hard constraints like a type system.
- tptacek 1y agoAt what level of formal methods verification does the argument against AI-generated code fall apart? My expectation is that the answer is "never". The subtext is pretty obvious, I think: that standards, on message boards, are being set for LLM-generated code that are ludicrously higher than would be set for people-generated code.
- kiitos 1y ago[flagged]