4 ms·

>AI can write extremely complex and unreadable code that works... until it doesn't. And then AI can fix it I'm not defending or encouraging AI, just saying th

>AI can write extremely complex and unreadable code that works... until it doesn't. And then AI can fix it I'm not defending or encouraging AI, just saying that argument doesn't work

xmprt 1y ago
I'm talking about cases where even AI can't fix it. I've heard of a lot of stories where people vibe code their applications to 80% and then get stuck in a loop where AI is unable to solve their problems. It's been well documented that LLMs collapse after a certain complexity level.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  you were also talking about the future (as AIs get better and better). as of now AIs cannot write code too complex for better programmers to understand. your point holds for armies of low skill programmers, but you're just raising a fear and haven't come close to proving the case you're trying to make. We already know as counterweight that being first to the market with very substandard code generally wins over taking your time to get it right, so why should it be different with AI?
  - AstroBen 1y ago
    > We already know as counterweight that being first to the market with very substandard code generally wins ..we do? Who created short stories as used in Tiktok/IG? The first touch screen phone? First social media app? Was Google the first? I mean I almost see the opposite of what you're saying..
- YetAnotherNick 1y ago
  > AI doesn't have any of these limitation > AI is unable to solve their problems. You are contradicting yourself. AI works worse than humans in places where cognitive load is required, and so it can't cross the boundary of cognitive load. If say it becomes better at managing cognitive load in the future, then in any case it doesn't matter as you can ask it to reduce the cognitive load in the code and it would.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Most programmers can't make much sense of the output of a C compiler, either. We'll all be in that boat before long. (To anticipate the usual reaction when I point that out: if you're going to sputter with rage and say that compilers are deterministic while AI isn't, well... save it for a future argument with someone who can be convinced that it matters.)
  - cowboylowrez 1y ago
    on the other hand, I'd love to read an argument that persuades me that determinism doesn't matter in this case because I can't form any mental model that makes determinism-ed-ness a non factor in my decision making. of course, this comes with a disclaimer that I have no experience as a vibe coder lol
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      Real-world code bases are already far too large for any one programmer to internalize. They might as well be uninspectable. This problem isn't going to get anything but worse in the years to come. Incremental improvements in languages and methodologies won't suffice; future systems will simply have to be designed differently. They will be based on very high-level descriptions that can be used to synthesize tests that programs written and maintained by AI models can satisfy. Human involvement will end after the first phase, once the required test targets exist. Basically we are going to have to stop micromanaging our toolchains and start telling them what outcomes we want. Call it "vibe coding lol" or whatever, that's how it's going to work. When you write code in a traditional high-level language, you are telling your compiler how to generate the code that actually gets executed by the CPU. But this object code, again, might as well be completely inaccessible as far as most developers are concerned. If the compiler were to achieve the same result in different, unknowable ways each time it runs, that's a horrifying notion to those same developers... but we all might as well get used to it, because soon there will be no other way forward. Notice that the math guys are already having to deal with similar problems. Mochizuki or somebody drops a thousand-page proof on the community, and experts at the very highest levels have to waste years looking for bugs in it. They can't go on like this and they know it. They will have to give up the quaint idea of understanding something completely in order to prove or refute it, just as programmers and engineers will have to relinquish control over how our own creations work.
huflungdung 1y ago
[dead]

>AI can write extremely complex and unreadable code that works... until it doesn't. And then AI can fix it I'm not defending or encouraging AI, just saying that argument doesn't work

xmprt 1y ago

I'm talking about cases where even AI can't fix it. I've heard of a lot of stories where people vibe code their applications to 80% and then get stuck in a loop where AI is unable to solve their problems. It's been well documented that LLMs collapse after a certain complexity level.

fsckboy 1y ago
you were also talking about the future (as AIs get better and better). as of now AIs cannot write code too complex for better programmers to understand. your point holds for armies of low skill programmers, but you're just raising a fear and haven't come close to proving the case you're trying to make. We already know as counterweight that being first to the market with very substandard code generally wins over taking your time to get it right, so why should it be different with AI?
- AstroBen 1y ago
  > We already know as counterweight that being first to the market with very substandard code generally wins ..we do? Who created short stories as used in Tiktok/IG? The first touch screen phone? First social media app? Was Google the first? I mean I almost see the opposite of what you're saying..
YetAnotherNick 1y ago
> AI doesn't have any of these limitation > AI is unable to solve their problems. You are contradicting yourself. AI works worse than humans in places where cognitive load is required, and so it can't cross the boundary of cognitive load. If say it becomes better at managing cognitive load in the future, then in any case it doesn't matter as you can ask it to reduce the cognitive load in the code and it would.
CamperBob2 1y ago
Most programmers can't make much sense of the output of a C compiler, either. We'll all be in that boat before long. (To anticipate the usual reaction when I point that out: if you're going to sputter with rage and say that compilers are deterministic while AI isn't, well... save it for a future argument with someone who can be convinced that it matters.)
- cowboylowrez 1y ago
  on the other hand, I'd love to read an argument that persuades me that determinism doesn't matter in this case because I can't form any mental model that makes determinism-ed-ness a non factor in my decision making. of course, this comes with a disclaimer that I have no experience as a vibe coder lol
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Real-world code bases are already far too large for any one programmer to internalize. They might as well be uninspectable. This problem isn't going to get anything but worse in the years to come. Incremental improvements in languages and methodologies won't suffice; future systems will simply have to be designed differently. They will be based on very high-level descriptions that can be used to synthesize tests that programs written and maintained by AI models can satisfy. Human involvement will end after the first phase, once the required test targets exist. Basically we are going to have to stop micromanaging our toolchains and start telling them what outcomes we want. Call it "vibe coding lol" or whatever, that's how it's going to work. When you write code in a traditional high-level language, you are telling your compiler how to generate the code that actually gets executed by the CPU. But this object code, again, might as well be completely inaccessible as far as most developers are concerned. If the compiler were to achieve the same result in different, unknowable ways each time it runs, that's a horrifying notion to those same developers... but we all might as well get used to it, because soon there will be no other way forward. Notice that the math guys are already having to deal with similar problems. Mochizuki or somebody drops a thousand-page proof on the community, and experts at the very highest levels have to waste years looking for bugs in it. They can't go on like this and they know it. They will have to give up the quaint idea of understanding something completely in order to prove or refute it, just as programmers and engineers will have to relinquish control over how our own creations work.

huflungdung 1y ago

[dead]