Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once upon a time people advocated writing tests first…
Once upon a time people were thinking about what they're doing. LLMs absolve people from thinking
When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
251–260 of 309 posts
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#252> The Claude C Compiler illustrates the other side: it optimizes for > passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy > the test suite. It will not generalize. This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behavi…
> At no point does anyone stop and ask whether the generated code implements the desired functional behaviour for the system ("business logic"). Obvious question: why not? Let’s say you have competent devs, fair assumption. Maybe it’s because they don’t have enough time for solid QA? Lots of places are feature factories. In my personal projects I have more lines of code doing testing than implementation.
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behaviour of the code This is true for humans too. Tests should not be written or performed by the same person that writes the code
That's a complete fantasy world where companies have twice the engineers they actually need instead of half.
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#254No one really. Code is for humans to read and for machines to compile and execute. Llms are enabling people to just write the code and not have anyone read it. It’s solving a problem that didn’t really exist (we already had code generators before llms). It’s such an intoxicating copyright-abuse slot machine that a buddy who is building an ocaml+htmx tree editor told me “I always get stuck and end up going to the llm…
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#255> The Claude C Compiler illustrates the other side: it optimizes for > passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy > the test suite. It will not generalize. This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behavi…
Honestly, unit tests (at least on the front-end) are largely wasted time in the current state of software development. Taking the time that would have been spent on writing unit tests and instead using it to write functionally pure, immutable code would do much more to prevent bugs. There's also the problem that when stack rank time comes around each year no one cares about your unit tests. So using AI to write unit…
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#256> The Claude C Compiler illustrates the other side: it optimizes for > passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy > the test suite. It will not generalize. This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behavi…
Honestly, unit tests (at least on the front-end) are largely wasted time in the current state of software development. Taking the time that would have been spent on writing unit tests and instead using it to write functionally pure, immutable code would do much more to prevent bugs. There's also the problem that when stack rank time comes around each year no one cares about your unit tests. So using AI to write unit…
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#257> The Claude C Compiler illustrates the other side: it optimizes for > passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy > the test suite. It will not generalize. This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behavi…
Long time ago in France the mainstream view by computer people was that code or compute weren't what's important when dealing with computers, it is information that matters and how you process it in a sensible way (hence the name of computer science in French: informatique . And also the name for computer: “ordinateur” , literally: what sets things into order). As a result, computer students were talked a lot (too mu…
Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#258Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#259Re: When AI writes the software, who verifies it?
#260I encourage everyone to RTFA and not just respond to the headline. This really is a glimpse into where the future is going. I've been saying "the last job to be automated will be QA" and it feels more true every day. It's one thing to be a product engineer in this era. It's another to be working at the level the author is, where code needs to be verifiable. However, once people stop vibing apps and start vibing kerne…
Sigh. Is there any LLM solution for HN reader to filter out all top-level commenters that hadn't RTFA? I don't need the (micro-)shitstorms that these people spawn, even if the general HN algo scores these as "interesting".