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

Post by coliveira » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 1:53 AM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #225

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…

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…

Post by llm_trw » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 1:54 AM UTC

jcgrillo wrote: post #413

giantg2 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti." In my opinion the reason we get enterprise spaghetti is largely due to requirement issues and scope creep. It's nearly impossible to create a streamlined system without knowing what it should look like. And once the system gets to a certain…

When scopes creep and requirements change, simply refactor. Where is it written in The Law that you have to accrue technical debt? EDIT: I'm gonna double down on this one. The fact that your organization thinks they can demand of you that you can magically weathervane your codebase to their changeable whims is evidence that you have failed to realistically communicate to them what is actually possible to do well . Th…

Post by danielmarkbruce » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 1:56 AM UTC

philipwhiuk wrote: post #437

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are a lot better at a lot of things than a lot of humans. We got to the moon using a large number of systems to a) avoid errors where possible and b) build in redundancies. Even an LLM knows this and knew what the statement meant: https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e04f-0230-8002-8345-5d2eba2e7d... Putting "corrected" in quotes and saying "death spiral" implies error compounding. https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e19c-7f…

> LLMs are a lot better at a lot of things than a lot of humans. Sure, I'm really poor painter, Midjourney is better than me. Are they better than a human trained for that task, on that task? That's the real question. And I reckon the answer is currently no.

Post by jcgrillo » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

llm_trw wrote: post #454

jcgrillo wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When scopes creep and requirements change, simply refactor. Where is it written in The Law that you have to accrue technical debt? EDIT: I'm gonna double down on this one. The fact that your organization thinks they can demand of you that you can magically weathervane your codebase to their changeable whims is evidence that you have failed to realistically communicate to them what is actually possible to do well . Th…

>When scopes creep and requirements change, simply refactor. Congratulations, you just refactored out a use case which was documented in a knowledge base which has been replaced by 3 newer ones since then, happens once every 18 months and makes the company go bankrupt if it isn't carried out promptly. The type of junior devs who think that making code tidy is fixing the application are the type of dev who you don't l…

Post by dleeftink » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 2:03 AM UTC

braiamp wrote: post #448

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…

> because we've decided we can't be bothered with traditional search Traditional search was only Google, and Google figured out that they don't need to improve their tools to make it better, because everyone will continue to use it as a force of habit (google is a verb!). Traditional search is being abandoned because traditional search isn't good enough for the kinds of search we need (also, while google may claim th…