>> You no longer need to review the code. You also no longer need to work, earn money, have a life, read, study, know anything about the world. This is pure fantasy my brain farts hard when I read sentences like that
You also no longer need to work, earn money, have a life, read, study, know anything about the world. This is pure fantasy This will be reality in 10-20 years
It's already reality if you want to, today and in 10-20 years the outcome will be the same: being an homeless! And no please no UBI bs thanks
> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. Maybe for a personal project but this doesn't work in a multi-dev environment with paying customers. In my experience, paying attention to architecture and the code itself results in a much more pliable application that can be evolved.
Everyone who is responsible for SOC 2 at their company just felt a disturbance. Honestly, I can't wait for AI: development practices to mature, because I'm really tired of the fake hype and missteps getting in the way of things.
>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…
How do you handle the larger amounts of tests? I did this but my PRs are larger because more tests are needed
I'm not sure. My thinking is this will occur on the scale of the next several hundred years, not the next few.
The "Council of models" is a good first step, but ultimately I found myself settling on an automated talent acquisition pipeline. I have a BIRTHING_POOL.md that combines the best AGENTS.md and introduces random AI-generated mutations and deletions. The candidates are tested using take-home PRs which are reviewed by HR.md and TECH_MANAGER.md. TECH_MANAGER.md measures completion rate per tokens (effectiveness) and then…
Is this satire? I can't tell any more.
I don't understand why people try so hard to anthropormophize these tools and map them to human sociology...
> my experience from 5 years of coding with AI What AI have you been using for 5 years of coding?
More importantly: what software of value have they produced in that time? I glanced around their site, just saw a bunch of teaching materials about Ai.
> You generate random code, Code derived from a training set is not at all "random."
Not saying training set or present LLM. Truly random binary generator left to its own device. Lets evaluate what spits out from that iterated several trillion times over with the massive compute capability we will have. I am not thinking of this happening in the next couple years, but in the next couple of centuries.
> Truly random binary generator left to its own device.
This has been tried. It tends to overfit to unseen test environment conditions. You will not produce what you intend to produce.
> the massive compute capability we will have
Just burn carbon in the hopes something magical will happen. This is the mentality of a cargo cult.
Why should we throw away decades of development in determistic algorithms? Why tech people mentions "geneticists"? I would never select an algorithm with a "good" flying trait for making an airplane works, that's nuts
But you have selected an algorithm with a "good" flying trait already for making airplanes. Just with another avenue to get to it versus pure random generation. The evolution of the bird has came up with another algorithm for example, where they use flapping wings instead of thrust from engines. Even among airplane development, a lot was learned by studying birds, which are the result of a random walk algorithm.
No there is no selection and no traits to pick, it's the culmination of research and human engineering. An airplan is a complex system that needs serious engineering. You can study birs but up till a certain point, if you like it go doing bird watching, but it's everything except engineering
>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…
And how exactly do you foresee probabilistic systems working out in real life? Nobody wants software that seldom does what they expect, and which tends to trend toward desirable behavior over time (where "desirable" behavior is determined by the sum of global feedback and revenue/profit of the company producing it). Today you send some money to your spouse but it's received by another person with the same name. Tomor…
I think you misunderstand. Once established a function found through random walk is no different than a function found in any other way. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.
Maybe, but you won't be able to test all behaviors and you won't have enough time to try a million alternatives. Just because of the number of possibilities, it'll be faster to just read the code.
Eventually the generation and evaluation will be quite fast where testing a million alternatives will be viable. Impressive you suggest that there might be a million alternatives but it would be faster to just read the code and settle on one. How might that be determined? Did the author who wrote the standard library really come up with the best way when writing those functions? Or did they come up with something tha…
This comment strikes me as not having a good intuition for how fast the space of possible programs can grow.