> clueless and stubborn and confidently wrong Uhuh. I really shouldn’t be replying to this type of comment from a throwaway. But the extremely powerful semant

> clueless and stubborn and confidently wrong Uhuh. I really shouldn’t be replying to this type of comment from a throwaway. But the extremely powerful semantic search that we get from LLMs isn’t enough. I don’t think anyone is credibly arguing otherwise? Agents already are a layer on top trying to bridge the gap. But they’re really just using LLMs as a heuristic to explore extremely NP problem spaces. The notable successes with agents so far are when we can provide them with a solid verifier and preferably additional context hints on the steps to take in the problem space. See the test oracle problem on where this gets us. So forgive me if I think that it would be enough of a jump in computational complexity to remove those guard rails that it’s not feasible. But don’t say that I’m clueless, stubborn, or confidently wrong.