4 ms·

What does that mean? Can you elaborate?

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
Sorry, yes. LLMs write code that's then checked by human reviewers. Maybe it will be checked less in the future. But I'm not seeing fully-autonomous AI on the horizon. At that point, the legibility and prevalence of humans who can read the code becomes almost more important than which language the machine "prefers."
- behnamoh 9mo ago
  Well, verification is easier than creation (i.e., P ≠ NP). I think humans who can quickly verify something works will be in more demand than those who know how to write it. Even better: Since LLMs aren't as creative as humans (in-distribution thinking), test-writers will be in more demand (out-of-distribution thinkers). Both of these mean that humans will still be needed, but for other reasons. The future belongs to generalists!
  - rvz 9mo ago
    > The future belongs to generalists! Couldn't be more correct. The experienced generalists with techniques of verification testing are the winners [0] in this. But one thing you cannot do, is openly admit or to be found out to say something like: "I don't know a single line of Rust/Go/Typescript/$LANG code but I used an AI to do all of it" and the system breaks down and you can't fix it. It would be quite difficult to take a SWE seriously that prides themselves in having zero understanding and experience of building production systems and runs the risk of losing the company time and money. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46772520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46772520
    - bandrami 9mo ago
      I prefer my C compiler to write my asm for me from my C code but I can still (and sometimes have to!) read the asm it creates.
  - Der_Einzige 9mo ago
    P ≠ NP is NOT confirmed and my god I really do not want that to ever be confirmed I really do want to live in the world where P = NP and we can trivially get P time algorithms for believed to be NP problems. I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Sorry, yes. LLMs write code that's then checked by human reviewers. Maybe it will be checked less in the future. But I'm not seeing fully-autonomous AI on the horizon. At that point, the legibility and prevalence of humans who can read the code becomes almost more important than which language the machine "prefers."

behnamoh 9mo ago
Well, verification is easier than creation (i.e., P ≠ NP). I think humans who can quickly verify something works will be in more demand than those who know how to write it. Even better: Since LLMs aren't as creative as humans (in-distribution thinking), test-writers will be in more demand (out-of-distribution thinkers). Both of these mean that humans will still be needed, but for other reasons. The future belongs to generalists!
- rvz 9mo ago
  > The future belongs to generalists! Couldn't be more correct. The experienced generalists with techniques of verification testing are the winners [0] in this. But one thing you cannot do, is openly admit or to be found out to say something like: "I don't know a single line of Rust/Go/Typescript/$LANG code but I used an AI to do all of it" and the system breaks down and you can't fix it. It would be quite difficult to take a SWE seriously that prides themselves in having zero understanding and experience of building production systems and runs the risk of losing the company time and money. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46772520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46772520
  - bandrami 9mo ago
    I prefer my C compiler to write my asm for me from my C code but I can still (and sometimes have to!) read the asm it creates.
- Der_Einzige 9mo ago
  P ≠ NP is NOT confirmed and my god I really do not want that to ever be confirmed I really do want to live in the world where P = NP and we can trivially get P time algorithms for believed to be NP problems. I reject your reality and substitute my own.