11–13 of 13 posts
if so how much do we need to maintain to keep that kind of system up an running.
This was very thoughtful essay; I've had similar lines of thinking myself. How will we debug auto-generated AI code? That said, on that topic, the essay overlooks one key point and line of reasoning about debugging, one derived from Kernighan's Law. (Kernighan as in the K in AWK + K&R C...) The law states: "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly…
my crazy thoughts, which I am open to being wrong about:
this is still the old way of thinking. generative AI is a probability function—the results exist in a probability space. we expect to find a result at a specific point in that space, but we don't know the inputs to achieve it until it is solved. catch 22.
instead, we must embrace the chaos by building attractors in the system, and pruning results that stray too far from the boundaries we set. we should focus only on macro-level results, not the code. multiple solutions existing at any given time. if anything is "debugging", it is a generative AI agent.
What if the large tech companies systems are actually just old and we don't need that many people to maintain them and change them. that way they don't have to admit the technology companies are a mature industry and their profits about about to get competed away.