91–100 of 121 posts
Some of the examples in the paper seem to be wrong. For django-31056, they claim the AI-generated patch is "incomplete" because it's "missing critical parts of this logic, such as the try-except block and the check for a running event loop.". But if you look at the diff, that's clearly wrong. The try-except block and running check were already there before the patch. The human patch just indented them, making them ap…
If anyone can find a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using language from the article itself) we can change it again.
I would argue almost every popular benchmark quoted by the big LLM companies is tainted. OAI, xAI, Antropic, Google all score incredibly well, then you go to try and write code and its just okay . They claim it can do PHD level reasoning, but here I am not trusting it on basic computational thinking.
>They claim it can do PHD level reasoning, but here I am not trusting it on basic computational thinking. Not sure that's really the claim. I think they claim that performance on benchmarks like GPQA indicate PhD level knowledge of different fields.
Some of the examples in the paper seem to be wrong. For django-31056, they claim the AI-generated patch is "incomplete" because it's "missing critical parts of this logic, such as the try-except block and the check for a running event loop.". But if you look at the diff, that's clearly wrong. The try-except block and running check were already there before the patch. The human patch just indented them, making them ap…
Some of the examples in the paper seem to be wrong. For django-31056, they claim the AI-generated patch is "incomplete" because it's "missing critical parts of this logic, such as the try-except block and the check for a running event loop.". But if you look at the diff, that's clearly wrong. The try-except block and running check were already there before the patch. The human patch just indented them, making them ap…
According to the paper:
> 1. Solution leak: represents instances where the solution to the issue is clearly outlined in the issue description or comments on GitHub. Since both the issue descriptions and comments (referred to as hints_text in the SWE-Bench study) are provided as input to the models, these LLM models can extract the solutions directly from this information instead of generating it independently.
And yet, the SWE-Bench authors themselves explicitly state:
> In short, for participating on the SWE-bench leaderboard, using hints_text in any manner is not allowed. Although we don't explicitly say this in the original paper, we also do not make any mention of using the hints_text anywhere.
So, it's a made up issue that would only occur if you deviated from the paper implementation and explicitly added a field called "hints" that isn't used anywhere.
Some of the examples in the paper seem to be wrong. For django-31056, they claim the AI-generated patch is "incomplete" because it's "missing critical parts of this logic, such as the try-except block and the check for a running event loop.". But if you look at the diff, that's clearly wrong. The try-except block and running check were already there before the patch. The human patch just indented them, making them ap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why would these "couple of thousand volunteers" help with this?
And how would you ensure that all of them were really volunteers and not colluding with the vendors? Like, tech companies cheating on benchmarks is an old, old story (personal favourite: in the dark ages, before 3D acceleration, some graphics card drivers, on detecting a 2D acceleration benchmark, would _simply draw the wrong thing_), and I wouldn’t trust at least three of the major players as far as I could throw th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gut tells me the AIs will be best for small web projects that are greenfield. The kind a 1-3 person team could maintain. And my gut tells me they are the worst for the kinds of long-established software conglomerates many professionals work at, which have tons of internal services, integrated acquisitions, etc. etc. Ultimately the AI is good at what the average developer online is good at, probably full-stack web…
Your intuition runs counter to most folks experience. I work on complex machine learning training loops and loss functions. LLMs work great on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gut tells me the AIs will be best for small web projects that are greenfield. The kind a 1-3 person team could maintain. And my gut tells me they are the worst for the kinds of long-established software conglomerates many professionals work at, which have tons of internal services, integrated acquisitions, etc. etc. Ultimately the AI is good at what the average developer online is good at, probably full-stack web…
but that kind of code is so easy to write, and code is already way more terse than natural language! it's literally more typing to explain to an LLM how to write some greenfield web CRUD than it is to just type out the code, and if there's a lot of boilerplate it's faster to generate the repetitive parts with keyboard macros! where's the value everyone on this site and on LinkedIn (but NONE in my real or professional…
I’ve sat through some interviews recently with candidates who started their careers in the last 6 years or so… during the boom cycle. Some were quite good but a troubling amount were clearly over-leveled at their current/previous employers.
For example, last month we interviewed someone for a Staff Engineering role (current role: L5 Senior II engineer), for Python. This person was unable to explain what a set was in Python, didn’t seem to grok the basic HTTP request/response pattern etc. This wasn’t a leetcode interview; it was an engineering conversation. It was the same questions we’d given dozens and dozens engineers in the past. It wasn’t a language barrier issue (guy was American, interviewer was American). Dude just seemed to have a very very narrow set of skills.
For people like this I imagine AI feels like a superpower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different people seem to get wildly different results here, and I'm not sure what percentage is down to the type of software being built vs the usage patterns. In my case, I would guess less than 10% of the code I get out of AIs is useful. What sort of code are you getting those results with? Is it yet-another-react-frontend-button? Is it ebpf programs? Is it a parser in rust? For the latter two, I've found AI to hav…
Almost every time someone says "but most of my code nowadays is LLM generated" it's usually one of three things: 1. Very greenfield work where the LLM doesn't really have a lot of constraints to deal with and can fully control the setup + doesn't have to ingest a lot of existing context 2. Very small projects that largely follow established patterns (CRUD, frontends, etc.) 3. Well established implementation work (the…
it's gonna autocomplete: if err != nil { return fmt.Errorf("%w: could not foo: %v", err, thing) }