2 ms·
> Here’s the problem. AI agents are not bound by human context limits in the same way. An agent can read the tangled function, trace every caller, and make sens
by Sivart13 24d ago
> Here’s the problem. AI agents are not bound by human context limits in the same way. An agent can read the tangled function, trace every caller, and make sense of the mess that would have stopped a human cold. It can add the next branch correctly, and the one after that, working confidently inside code that no human on the team fully understands anymore.
They're not bound by the same limits but they're still bound by some limits, yeah?
I'm not an AI expert, so I don't honestly understand why LLM driven agents are as good as they are. But my impression is "trace every caller", most of the time, is still an approximation. Once the code has gotten convoluted enough, cases are going to get dropped.
- dgellow 24d agoThey also very often do not actually read the fucking files! Even after specifying to „read in full the fucking files“. LLMs are so lazy, they take any shortcut they can. Sorry, just thinking about it is reviving my frustration…
- nijave 24d agoYeah, you gotta make em prove their work so they don't hallucinate. Try "build a script to trace callers" and "cite each file and line that calls the function" Won't fix everything but usually helps in my experience Although you still run into hard-to-find things especially in dynamic/duck typed languages or codebases with heavy use of reflection or code bases used as libraries
- rosenfeld 23d agoYes, of course, they're limited, but it doesn't compare to the limit humans face. We can't hold a lot of context on our minds when investigating a bug when the code is too complex with huge methods, lots of branches, several callers and so on. It doesn't mean agents are perfect but they don't care as much as humans if the code is a mess because they can find logic in mess, we can't.