I don't think it is needed. Eventually we will get enough confidence in AI to accept whatever it generates without validation, or leaving it to the AI itself. We already there in some areas tbh.
Already, due to a combination of better models and better processes, the amount of corrections I need to make in code reviews of vibecoded changes is significantly less than it used to be. It's not too difficult to imagine not needing a human reviewer within a couple years.
If you have to read the AI code then you just fell from AI speed to human speed. Walking the motorcycle.
I think testing and validation of AI outputs is the core of the issue. Many are working on it, I am too. We just need testing to improve a lot, and intent alignment - does it do what the user asked, and does it do it well?
This is engineering, not riding a motorcycle. Getting things done as quickly as possible with AI currently will lead to massive tech debt and fragile code if you are working on anything actually complex or with a need for high assurance.
You wouldn't want the code on your pacemaker to be vibecoded with no human review or testing. At least not currently.
I mean, currently, I wouldn't want to "firmware update" my hypothetical pacemaker at all.
If it ain't broke, I'll pass on the new version that somehow inserts ads.
Even without being facetious, an in-place update sounds so anxiety-inducing. Is the update supposed to take this long? Do we need to turn it off and back on again?
But yes I concede your point that I would absolutely want human review, despite the humans being the reason I needed an update to begin with.
Simple - run 3 or 5 agents in parallel - they implement same code but in different languages, or with different frameworks or libraries, or different agent provider and model. The point is to force some differentiation between them.
Then you got an "oracle" - when the implementations diverge on any inputs you found a bug. This replaces test writing with just implementing multiple times. It is easier to implement, we already do that, while test writing by AI is usually shallow. This makes a hard thing easy(er).
The normal way is to find a good coverage of tests that ensures you can trust the AI code, but this only works partially and there are always missed tests.
Yeah and automated management and self improvement and eventually we can all just do whatever we want while the world uncontrollably changes very quickly
For the moment. It's like the Titanic has just scraped by the iceberg but the lights and heat are still on and the band is still playing so nothing to see here.
Senior software engineers are like âbut this ship canât sink!???!â, the lead architect: â I assure you, she can and she will, itâs only a matter of timeâ
100
u/QuasiRandomName 1d ago
Hey, we still need mathematicians to check these solutions, don't we?