Earlier quoted context omitted.
I propose a "proof of quality" consensus mechanism. :-)
Sounds great -- let me fire up my agent swarm to get started on orchestrating the development of a planning spec.
Reliable Software in the LLM Era
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#12Nothing changes in terms of how to make reliable software. You need the same things like unit tests, integration tests, monitoring tools, etc. Basically AI now makes every product operate as if it has a vibrant open-source community with hundreds of contributions per day and a small core team with limited capacity.
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#13AI Era, Agentic Era, LLM Era... Can we settle on Slop Decade?
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#14Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#15Nothing changes in terms of how to make reliable software. You need the same things like unit tests, integration tests, monitoring tools, etc. Basically AI now makes every product operate as if it has a vibrant open-source community with hundreds of contributions per day and a small core team with limited capacity.
[flagged]
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#16Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#17AI Era, Agentic Era, LLM Era... Can we settle on Slop Decade?
Shallow dismissals are not permitted on this site as per its rules.
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#18Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#19Nothing changes in terms of how to make reliable software. You need the same things like unit tests, integration tests, monitoring tools, etc. Basically AI now makes every product operate as if it has a vibrant open-source community with hundreds of contributions per day and a small core team with limited capacity.
Re: Reliable Software in the LLM Era
#20Nothing changes in terms of how to make reliable software. You need the same things like unit tests, integration tests, monitoring tools, etc. Basically AI now makes every product operate as if it has a vibrant open-source community with hundreds of contributions per day and a small core team with limited capacity.
A more concrete example is maybe you have tests that show you put a highlight on the active item tests that show you don’t put the highlight on the inactive items, but with an llm you might also want to have tests that wait a while and verify the highlight is not flickering on and off overtime (something so absurd you wouldn’t even test for it before AI).
The value of these test is in catching areas of the code where things are drifting towards nonsense because humans aren’t reviewing as thoroughly. I don’t think that you can realistically have 100% data coverage and prevent every single bug and not review the code. It’s just that I found that slightly more tests are warranted if you do want to step back.