4 ms·
That might have been true pre LLMs but you can literally point an agent at the queue until it’s empty now.
by reactordev 6mo ago
That might have been true pre LLMs but you can literally point an agent at the queue until it’s empty now.
- batshit_beaver 6mo agoYou literally cannot, since ANY changes to code tend to introduce unintended (or at least not explicitly requested) new behaviors.
- reactordev 6mo agoI’ve had mine on a Ralph loop no problem. Just review the PR..
- k_roy 6mo agoWhich still means a single person with Claude can clear a queue in a day versus a month with a traditional team.
- worthless-trash 6mo agoYour example must have incredible users or really trivial software.
- lll-o-lll 6mo agoEventual convergence? Assuming each defect fix has a 30% chance of introducing a new defect, we keep cycling until done?
- Kinrany 6mo agoWhy would it converge?
- saintfire 6mo agoAssuming you can catch every new bug it introduces. Both assumptions being unlikely. You also end up with a code base you let an AI agent trample until it is satisfied; ballooned in complexity and redudant brittle code.
- charcircuit 6mo agoYou can have an AI agent refactor and improve code quality.
- abakker 6mo agoBut, have you any code that has been vetted and verified to see if this approach works? This whole Agentic code quality claim is an assertion, but where is the literal proof?
- WithinReason 6mo agoIf it can be trained with reinforcement learning then it will happen
- wredcoll 6mo agoDid we have code quality before llms?
- intended 6mo agoIt’s agents all the way down - until you have liability. At some point, it’s going to be someone’s neck on the line, and saying “the agents know” isn’t going to satisfy customers (or in a worst case, courts).
- charcircuit 6mo agoSure it can. It's not like humans aren't already deflecting liability or moving it to insurance agencies.
- lelanthran 6mo ago> It's not like humans aren't already deflecting liability They attempt to, sure, but it rarely works. Now, with AI, maybe it might, but that's sort of a worse outcome for the specific human involved - "If you're just an intermediary between the AI and me, WTF do I need you for?" > or moving it to insurance agencies. They aren't "moving" it to insurance companies, they are amortising the cost of the liability at a small extra cost. That's a big difference.
- majewsky 6mo agoThat's assuming that each fix can only introduce at most one additional defect, which is obviously untrue.
- bluefirebrand 6mo agoAs long as we're inventing numbers, what if it's a 90% chance? What if it's a 200% chance, and every fix introduces multiple defects?
- pron 6mo agoExcept they don't converge. You see that if you use agents to evolve a codebase. We also saw exactly that in the failed Anthropic experiment to create a C compiler.
- nostrademons 6mo agoThe chance of a defect fix introducing a new defect tends to grow linearly with the size of the codebase, since defects are usually caused by the interaction between code and there's now more code to interact with. If you plot this out, you'll notice that it eventually reaches > 100% and the total number of defects will eventually grow exponentially, as each bugfix eventually introduces more bugs than it fixes. Which is what I've actually observed in 25 years in the software industry. The speed at which new bugs are introduced faster than bugfixes varies by organization and the skill of your software architects - good engineers know how to keep coupling down and limit the space of existing code that a new fix could possibly break. I've seen some startups where they reach this asymptote before bringing the product to market though (needless to say, they failed), and it's pretty common for computer games to become steaming piles of shit close to launch, and I've even seen some Google systems killed and rewritten because it became impossible to make forward progress on them. I call this technical bankruptcy, the end result of technical debt.
- bsder 6mo agoThe fact that KiCad still has a ton of highly upvoted missing features and the fact that FreeCAD still hasn't solved the topological renumbering problem are existence proofs to the contrary.
- rybosworld 6mo agoShouldn't be down voted for saying this. There are active repo's this is happening in. "BuT ThE LlM iS pRoBaBlY iNtRoDuCiNg MoRe BuGs ThAn It FiXeS" This is an absurd take.
- array_key_first 6mo agoIt probably is introducing more bugs because I think some people dont understand how bugs work. Very, very rarely is a bug a mistake. As in, something unintentional that you just fix and boom, done. No no. Most bugs are intentional, and the bug part is some unintended side effects that is a necessary, but unforseen, consequence of the main effect. So, you can't just "fix" the bug without changing behavior, changing your API, changing garauntees, whatever. And that's how you get the 1 month 1-liner. Writing the one line is easy. But you have to spend a month debating if you should do it, and what will happen if you do.
- missingdays 6mo agoSo, you have already fixed all the bugs and now just cruising through life?
- jen729w 6mo agoI wonder whether people like you have actually used Claude for any length of time. I use it all day. I consider it a near-miracle. Yet I correct it multiple times daily.
- rybosworld 6mo ago> I wonder whether people like you have actually used Claude for any length of time. I stated the LLMs are actively being used in repo's today, to chew through backlog items, and your response is to wonder if I've ever used Claude. To me it's surprising that someone like you, who appears to have a reading comprehension deficiency, is able to use Claude.