Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#181

Post by wvenable »

skrebbel wrote: post #127

To my experience, AIs can generate perfectly good code relatively easy things, the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow, and they'll very confidently generate subtly wrong code for anything that's non-trivial for an experienced programmer to write. How do people deal with this? I simply don't understand the value proposition. Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code? Or do they have 25% trivial code…

> Or do they have 25% trivial code?

We all have probably 25% or more trivial code. AI is great for that. I have X (table structure, model, data, etc) and I want to make Y with it. A lot of code is pretty much mindless shuffling data around.

The other thing is good for is anything pretty standard. If I'm using a new technology and I just want to get started with whatever is the best practice, it's going to do that.

If I ever have to do PowerShell (I hate PowerShell), I can get AI to generate pretty much whatever I want and then I'm smart enough to fix any issues. But I really don't like starting from nothing in a tech I hate.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#182

Post by sangnoir »

skrebbel wrote: post #127

To my experience, AIs can generate perfectly good code relatively easy things, the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow, and they'll very confidently generate subtly wrong code for anything that's non-trivial for an experienced programmer to write. How do people deal with this? I simply don't understand the value proposition. Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code? Or do they have 25% trivial code…

> Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code?

How do you quantify "new code" - is it by lines of code or number of PRs/changesets generated? I can easily see it being the latter - if an AI workflow suggests 1 naming-change/cleanup commit to your PR made of 3 other human-authored commits, has it authored 25% of code? Arguably, yes - but it's trivial code that ought to be reviewed by humans. Dependabot is responsible for a good chunk of PRs already.

Having a monorepo brings plenty of opportunities for automation when refactoring - whether its AI, AST manipulation or even good old grep. The trick is not to merge the code directly, but have humans in the loop to approve, or take-over and correct the code first.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#183

Post by reverius42 »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #122
latexr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if this can be accompanied by an increase in software quality That’s a huge “if”, and by your own admission not what’s happening now. > other LLM agents reviewing code, feeding in compile errors, letting other LLM agents interact with the produced code, etc. What a stupid future. Machines which make errors being “corrected” by machines which make errors in a death spiral. An unbelievable waste of figurative and lit…

> What a stupid future. Machines which make errors being “corrected” by machines which make errors in a death spiral. An unbelievable waste of figurative and literal energy. Humans are machines which make errors. Somehow, we got to the moon. The suggestion that errors just mindlessly compound and that there is no way around it, is what's stupid.

To err is human. To err at scale is AI.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#184

Post by romwell »

chongli wrote: post #169
toasteros wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow This bothers me. I completely understand the conversational aspect - "what approach might work for this?", "how could we reduce the crud in this function?" - it worked a lot for me last year when I tried learning C. But the vast majority of AI use that I see is...not that. It's just glorified, very expensive search. We are willing to burn far, far more fuel t…

we've decided we can't be bothered with traditional search Traditional search (at least on the web) is dying. The entire edifice is drowning under a rapidly rising tide of spam and scam sites. No one, including Google, knows what to do about it so we're punting on the whole project and hoping AI will swoop in like deus ex machina and save the day.

Narrator: it did not, in fact, save the day.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#185

Post by robohoe »

chabes wrote: post #140

When Google announced their big layoffs, I noted the timing in relation to some big AI announcements. People here told me I was crazy for suggesting that corporations could replace employees with AI this early. Now the CEO is confirming that more than a quarter of new code is created by AI. Can’t really deny that reality anymore folks.

Who claims that he is speaking the truth and not some marketing jargon?

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#186

Post by rpcope1 »

skrebbel wrote: post #127

To my experience, AIs can generate perfectly good code relatively easy things, the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow, and they'll very confidently generate subtly wrong code for anything that's non-trivial for an experienced programmer to write. How do people deal with this? I simply don't understand the value proposition. Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code? Or do they have 25% trivial code…

I don't get it either. People will say all sorts of strange stuff about how it writes the code for them or whatever, but even using the new Claude 3.5 Sonnet or whatever variant of GPT4, the moment I ask it anything that isn't the most basic done-to-death boilerplate, it generates stuff that's wrong, and often subtly wrong. If you're not at least pretty knowledgeable about exactly what it's generating, you'll be stuck trying to troubleshoot bad code, and if you are it's often about as quick to just write it yourself. It's especially bad if you get away from Python, and try to make it do anything else. SQL especially, for whatever reason, I've seen all of the major players generate either stuff that's just junk or will cause problems (things that your run of the mill DBA will catch).

Honestly, I think it will become a better Intellisense but not much more. I'm a little excited because there's going to be so many people buying into this, generating so much bad code/bad architecture/etc. that will inevitably need someone to fix after the hype dies down and the rug is pulled, that I think there will continue to be employment opportunities.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#187

Post by skeeter2020 »

skrebbel wrote: post #127

To my experience, AIs can generate perfectly good code relatively easy things, the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow, and they'll very confidently generate subtly wrong code for anything that's non-trivial for an experienced programmer to write. How do people deal with this? I simply don't understand the value proposition. Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code? Or do they have 25% trivial code…

trivial code could very easily include the vast majority of most apps we're building these days. Most of it's just glue, and AI can probably stitch together a bunch of API calls and some UI as well as a human. It could also be a lot of non-product code, tooling, one-time things, etc.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#188

Post by kgeist »

Twirrim wrote: post #138
ntulpule wrote: post #88

Hi, I lead the teams responsible for our internal developer tools, including AI features. We work very closely with Google DeepMind to adapt Gemini models for Google-scale coding and other Software Engineering usecases. Google has a unique, massive monorepo which poses a lot of fun challenges when it comes to deploying AI capabilities at scale. 1. We take a lot of care to make sure the AI recommendations are safe and…

> We work very closely with Google DeepMind to adapt Gemini models for Google-scale coding and other Software Engineering usecases. Considering how terrible and frequently broken the code that the public facing Gemini produces, I'll have to be honest that that kind of scares me. Gemini frequently fails at some fairly basic stuff, even in popular languages where it would have had a lot of source material to work from;…

They probably use AI for writing tests, small internal tools/scripts, building generic frontends and quick prototypes/demos/proofs of concept. That could easily be that 25% of the code. And modern LLMs are pretty okayish with that.
Post reply on HN