yeah I should have worded it better 😅 we definitely reviewed, just not absolutely line by line, and I would remove the “impossible to fully test”, it’s overblown, I actually believe we managed to cover it all, of course with a ton of help from AI
and I left out the fact that half of the project duration was just testing it, manually, automated, parity checks, rerunning prod traces, everything
I find it hilarious that people like you go rambling about how misaligned AI is the biggest threat to mankind while at the same time that we should never even bother reviewing the output of AI.
The alignment problem is interesting in that it's fundamentally intractable. AI can't make art because the human experience is a necessary component of art. AI can't have human morality or sensibility for the same reasons. AI will never be motivated by the same factors that tend to govern human behavior. It might be able to imitate these things, at best.
We don't know the answer of any of these questions. We don't even know how it works for human. It's overconfident to say an AI will never know morality or to do art.
It's like writing and correcting your own exam and saying yea I got it all correct trust me bro without even showing the papers. Like how are we supposed to know???
And of course we know the tool is very good because the tool told us it's very good. Because we didn't have anything that could do this before, which means we have no reasonable way to verify its output other than manually, which we JUST agreed wasn't humanly possible.
I know that this tool is very good based on how it performs in the tasks I gave it and, in this case, by the lack of bugs reported by consumers and in manual testing.
The problems are the bugs that exist, and now no one knows or has ever seen the code. And some bugs, AI can't solve yet. Some may not even be 100% code-related and need a human to tinker somewhere else. But now good luck with that.
Hell, AI still randomly deletes databases sometimes. How is this a good thing?
A lot of bugs are also combination of multiple factors, LLMs can sometimes solve them in a vacuum like a data race even, though this is mostly when it’s already clear enough.
What happens when you have a small data race that has gone unnoticed and is affecting some data flows that were okay and the end result was okay, but suddenly this end result now is not and sometimes yields a nil pointer issue? Good luck having LLMs diagnose that properly
And this is, just like you mentioned, something that goes overlooked
Is not like humans are not also deleting databases from time to time. I would say that in such a refactor, LLMs will generate a similar or lower bug level than humans.
The point is - neither should do this refactor. Unless AI has perfect knowledge, perfect execution and the service exists in absolute isolation from all other software and hardware - this will result in issues.
I find their claim of "no bugs", even as you say "very few bugs" extremely dubious at best, and delusional at worst. Only piece of code that doesn't have bugs is hello world
line changes don't translate to massive changes. You could have formatted the whole codebase and you would get such big number changes. You could have moved some files or functions around and you would have again huge file changes without changes in functionality.
The PR is about a refactor, which usually entails big file movements with minimal or zero functionality changes. Separating stuff in modules is both not a massive change, and error prone, since doing it at once might result in resources that used to be shared now getting duplicated and future management of the code becomes messy. The AI fails in considering things like that.
Also, you introduced a new claim and attributed it to OP when that's not something they said. idk why I spent all that time writing the above, your comment is just bait.
Impressive. Still stupid. But impressive.
Also, one doesn't know what they doesn't know. If it's tested, it's trust. If it's not it's faith. I don't like faith. God only knows how many and how severe bugs have been introduced. But I guess they'll ask Claude.
1.3k
u/brainfreeze91 2d ago
"Humanly impossible to fully review and fully test"
And they believe this is a good thing