4 ms·
As I understand things, part of what you get with these coding agents is automating the process of 1. LLM writes broken code, such as using an imaginary functio
by michaelt 1y ago
As I understand things, part of what you get with these coding agents is automating the process of 1. LLM writes broken code, such as using an imaginary function, 2. user compiles/runs the code and it errors because the function doesn't exist, 3. paste the error message into the LLM, 4. LLM tries to fix the error, 5. Loop.
Much like a company developing a new rocket by launching, having it explode, fixing the cause of that explosion, then launching another rocket, in a loop until their rockets eventually stop exploding.
I don't connect my live production database to what I think of as an exploding rocket, and I find it bewildering that apparently other people do....
- ehnto 1y agoThe trouble is that it won't actually learn from its mistakes, and often in business the mistakes are very particular to your processes such that they will never be in the training data. So when the agent attempts to codify the business logic you need to be super specific, and there are many businesses I have worked in where it is just too complex and arbitrary for an LLM to keep the thread reliably. Even when you feed it all the business requirements. Maybe this changes over time but as I work with it now, there is an intrinsic limitation to how nuanced they can be without getting confused.