3 ms·
Because guaranteed to never fail requires some UX inconveniences, and the industry (and the market) doesn't seem in a mood to tolerate inconvenience for the sak
by ethbr1 3mo ago
Because guaranteed to never fail requires some UX inconveniences, and the industry (and the market) doesn't seem in a mood to tolerate inconvenience for the sake of security.
- qarl2 3mo agoOh good - so you don't see the agents themselves as inherently sloppy - that's just how they're being used by some people. Because I must warn you - it's extremely easy to ask a coding agent to prove code correctness before committing his work.
- ethbr1 3mo agoAgents themselves are inherently probabilistically correct. Often correct more often than humans at this point! But that doesn't mean they don't have >0% failure modes, often in very non-human, unexpected, even dangerous ways. Whether that's "sloppy"? Eh, it's just the nature of the tool, like a perfect screwdriver that randomly strips 1% of screws. > it's extremely easy to ask a coding agent to prove code correctness That statement is categorically wrong. If you're talking about a formal proof for non-trivial, real-world code, no. If you're talking about a comprehensive set of tests... well, I'd challenge you to elucidate how you see creating a comprehensive set of tests as trivial. And if the answer is more LLM... then I think we're at a fundamental disagreement about what satisfies "guarantee" or "provable".
- qarl2 3mo agoThis is truly delicious. I invite you to examine the test suite on the project I just published. Was it trivial? No, I'd say the whole project did take me a couple days. https://github.com/qarl/arcade-js https://github.com/qarl/arcade-js You have a nice day.