- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Seems like he’s been pushed into using LLMs as a way to cope with the deluge of LLM-generated security reports.
Seems like he’s been pushed into using LLMs as a way to cope with the deluge of LLM-generated security reports.
This is something people complaining should remember. AI is good at some parts of the work of a software engineer: the grunt work.
Apparently not good enough, if we look at the case of rsync. Remember, this while conversation started because of some show stopping bugs caused by generated code.
As a software engineer, the grunt work is reasoning about my code, something a statistical model can’t do.
People pointing at new breakages are trying to say “No it isn’t and here’s the proof”.
How do you know those were the result of the AI?
Seems to me like it was just his own fault. AI may very well have had nothing to do with the regressions, other than maybe not identifying them?
If the generator made a mistake, it’s actually not its fault, and you can’t prove it. If the code works, it’s an amazing achievement of the machine, singularity is here, you don’t need to look any further.
He rewrote the test suite to Python using AI tools, which I believe people are saying caused some otherwise detected cases to be missed.
Those people are wrong. The 3.4.3 release passes all the integration tests in the 3.4.1 release’s test-suite, which is the last release without LLM code. You can easily test this yourself