I’d bet at least a quarter of their code is class definitions, constructors, and all the other minutiae files required for modern software, so that makes sense. But people weren’t writing most of that before either, we’ve had autocomplete and code geb for a long time.
Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
401–410 of 1001 posts
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
In lisp about 50% of the code is just closing parentheses.
Heh, but it can't be that, no reason to think llms can count brackets needing a close any more than they can count words.
LLMs can count words (and letters) just fine if you train them to do so.
Consider the fact that GPT-4 can generate valid XML (meaning balanced tags, quotes etc) in base64-encoded form. Without CoT, just direct output.
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#403Google used to be respected, a place so highly sought after that engineers who worked there were revered like wizards. oh how they've fallen :(
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 stuc…
Interesting that you believe your subjective experience outweighs the claims of all others who report successfully using LLMs for coding. Wouldn't a more charitable interpretation be that it doesn't fit the stuff you're doing?
[deleted]
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#405Public says more than a quarter of Google's search results are absolute crap.
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#406To 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…
> 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…
Another frustration I have with these models is that it is yet another crutch and excuse for turning off your brain. I was tagged on a PR a couple days ago where a coworker had added a GIN index to a column in Postgres, courtesy of GPT-4o, of course.
He couldn't pronounce the name of the extension, apparently not noticing that trgm == trigram, or what that might even be. Copying the output from the LLM and pasting it into a PR didn't result in anything other than him checking off a box, moving a ticket in Jira, and then onto the next thing--not even a pretense of being curious about what any of it all meant. But look at those query times now!
It's been possible for a while to shut off your brain as a programmer and blindly copy-paste from StackOverflow etc., but the level of enablement that LLMs afford is staggering.
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is engineering boring? Stranges ideas and claims u made. I’m an engineer who writes code since 20 years and it’s far away from trivial . Maybe to do web dev for a simple Webshop is. Elsewhere software has often times special requirements. Be them technical or domain wise both make the process complex and not simple IMHO
Boring is the opposite of exciting/dynamic. Not all engineering is boring. Also, boring is not bad. A lot of my career has been spent working to make software boring. To the extent that I've helped contribute to the status quo, where we can build certain types of software in a relatively secure fashion and on relatively predictable timelines, I am proud to have made the world more boring! (Also, complexity can be ext…
I was totally with you until "70% of things are pretty systematic and repeatable". This has not been my experience, and I think you acknowledged it yourself when you said "Google (as opposed to e.g. a bank)" - there are many more banks in the world than Googles. The main challenge will be transitioning all those "banks" to "Google's" and further still. They have 10y+ codebases written in 5 months by a single genius engineer (who later found his luck elsewhere), then hammered by multiple years of changing maintainers. That's the real "70% of things" :D
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#408Hi, 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;…
I'm the first to say that AI will not replace human coders.
But I don't understand this attempt to tell companies/persons that are successfully using AI that no they really aren't.
In my opinion, if they feel they're using AI successfully, the goal should be to learn from that.
I don't understand this need to tell individuals who say they are successfully using AI that, "no you aren't."
It feels like a form of denial.
Like someone saying, "I refuse to accept that this could work for you, no matter what you say."
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#409To 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…
Most programming is trivial. Lots of non-trivial programming tasks can be broken down into pure, trivial sections. Then, the non-trivial part becomes knowing how the entire system fits together. I've been using LLMs for about a month now. It's a nice productivity gain. You do have to read generated code and understand it. Another useful strategy is pasting a buggy function and ask for revisions. I think most programm…
Yes. Productivity tools make programmer time more valuable, not less. This is basic economics. You’re now able to generate more value per hour than before.
(Or if you’re being paid to waste time, maybe consider coding in assembly?)
So don’t be afraid. Learn to use the tools. They’re not magic, so stop expecting that. It’s like anything else, good at some things and not others.
Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most programming is trivial. Lots of non-trivial programming tasks can be broken down into pure, trivial sections. Then, the non-trivial part becomes knowing how the entire system fits together. I've been using LLMs for about a month now. It's a nice productivity gain. You do have to read generated code and understand it. Another useful strategy is pasting a buggy function and ask for revisions. I think most programm…
>I think most programmers who claim that LLMs aren't useful are reacting emotionally. I don't think that's true. Most programmers I speak to have been keen to try it out and reap some benefits. The almost universal experience has been that it works for trivial problems, starts injecting mistakes for harder problems and goes completely off the rails for anything really difficult.
> I don't think that's true. Most programmers I speak to have been keen to try it out and reap some benefits.
I’ve been seeing the complete opposite. So it’s out there.