3 ms·
AI is not going away so people will have to get used to it just like they will have to get used to it in software engineering. The alternative is being less pro
by measurablefunc 18d ago
AI is not going away so people will have to get used to it just like they will have to get used to it in software engineering. The alternative is being less productive than people who are happy to use AI to write software & do mathematical research.
- oasisaimlessly 18d agoIt is still an unknown whether an unqualified increase in productivity in the long-term for software engineering is a given.
- qarl 18d agoReally? OK - then let me stand up and vouch that I am at least 20X more productive with AI.
- dermacentor 18d agoIn the long term.
- qarl 18d agoFair enough - it will take some time before the science comes back. But I feel the need to point out - the goalposts for "does AI work" shift daily.
- tom_ 18d agoIn the long term, it'll be at least be the year 2030. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
- adamddev1 18d agoWould I be wrong to assume that you are building end-user applications? If people use AI for libraries, OSs, and mission critical software, the apparent productivity gains would have to be weighed against the reliability and performance hits that bubble up to the things that are built on them and rely on them.
- qarl 18d agoIn my experience - a robust testing harness will get you the safety you need. And most software you describe has such testing. I think the Bun port is a great example where testing enabled a very successful implementation. (Both the original tests themselves and runtime comparisons to the previous implementation.)
- adamddev1 18d agoTesting is an extremely inadequate measure of reliability and robustness.
- qarl 18d agoYou understand that robust testing can, should, and often does test directly for reliability and robustness, right?
- adamddev1 18d agoYes of course, but you also understand that as Dijkstra said "tests cannot show the absence of bugs." Tests can show you problems, if you can find them, but they cannot show that there are no problems. Property based testing or fuzzing gets your more coverage, and is a good step, but it is still nothing compared to proving things or understanding how something is built and that it is solid. Testing works towards checking for reliability and robustness, but often it's only 10% (?) of the job.
- qarl 18d agoWell, yes, I understand that testing does not create a provably correct solution. But I'd love to hear the source of your "extremely inadequate" or your "10%" claims. I mean - there is a reason why it's used extensively in software engineering - right? Or don't you see value in that, either? I'm curious - is there any data on the Bun port error rate? I think that would be very indicative of how successful or not the testing is.
- vouaobrasil 18d agoBut isn't it a horrible thing that what you just described (being forced by the prisoner's dilemma), is what defines progress these days?
- measurablefunc 18d agoThere is nothing I can do about that. Investors & shareholders believe that AI is the future so that's where all the money is going.
- vouaobrasil 18d agoI know. I just thought it was kind of a sad state of affairs....
- measurablefunc 18d agoI agree but that's the reality.
- adamddev1 18d agoA similar line of thought is used to justify corruption: "Corruption is not going away so people will have to get used to it. The alternative is making less money than people who are happy to take bribes."
- selectodude 18d agoI can’t run a corruption racket in my basement.
- measurablefunc 18d agoPeople used to complain about compilers as well.
- adamddev1 18d agoCompilers are deterministic.
- measurablefunc 18d agoSo are AI.
- adamddev1 18d agoLLMs are probabilistic, not deterministic.
- measurablefunc 18d agoThat is a very common misconception.
- btilly 18d agoThe fact that a similar argument can be made does not mean that it is wrong. Socrates famously made the opposing side of the argument against writing. Which is why we mostly know of him through Plato, who did believe in writing. And to your corruption example. If you live in a society where corruption is normal and expected, you will be worse off if you are unwilling to be corrupt. It is indeed a local optima. But we are all, of course, better off if we live in a society where corruption is punished. To me, the worst thing about modern US politics, is that it's encouraging us to see ourselves as living in a world where corruption exists and is tolerated.