“I gave an LLM a wildly oversimplified version of a complex human task and it did pretty well”
For how long will we be forced to endure different versions of the same article?
The study said 86.66% of the generated software systems were “executed flawlessly.”
Like I said yesterday, in a post celebrating how ChatGPT can do medical questions with less than 80% accuracy, that is trash. A company with absolute shit code still has virtually all of it “execute flawlessly.” Whether or not code executes it not the bar by which we judge it.
Even if it were to hit 100%, which it does not, there’s so much more to making things than this obviously oversimplified simulation of a tech company. Real engineering involves getting people in a room, managing stakeholders, navigating conflicting desires from different stakeholders, getting to know the human beings who need a problem solved, and so on.
LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration, despite all this hype.
AI regularly hallucinates API endpoints that don’t exist, functions that aren’t part of that language, libraries that don’t exist. There’s no fucking way it did any of this bullshit. Like, yeah - it can probably do a mean autocomplete, but this is being pushed so hard because they want to drive wages down even harder. They want know-nothing middle-managers to point to this article and say “I can replace you with AI, get to work!”…that’s the only purpose of this crap.
The difficult part of software development has always been the continuing support. Did the chatbot setup a versioning system, a build system, a backup system, a ticketing system, unit tests, and help docs for users. Did it get a conflicting request from two different customers and intelligently resolve them? Was it given a vague problem description that it then had to get on a call with the customer to figure out and hunt down what the customer actually wanted before devising/implementing a solution?
This is the expensive part of software development. Hiring an outsourced, low-tier programmer for almost nothing has always been possible, the low-tier programmer being slightly cheaper doesn’t change the game in any meaningful way.
A test that doesn’t include a real commercial trial or A/B test with real human customers means nothing. Put their game in the App Store and tell us how it performs. We don’t care that it shat out code that compiled successfully. Did it produce something real and usable or just gibberish that passed 86% of its own internal unit tests, which were also gibberish?
Please ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the corresponding electricity that was required to run the servers and infrastructure required to train and use this models, please. Or the master cracks the whip again, please, just say you’ll invest in our startup, please!
Future software is going to be written by AI, no matter how much you would like to avoid that.
My speculation is that we will see AI operating systems at some point, due to the extreme effectiveness of future AI to hack and otherwise subvert frameworks, services, libraries and even protocols.
So mutating protocols will become a thing, whereby AI will change and negotiate protocols on the fly, as a war rages between defensive AI and offensive AI. There will be shared codebase, but a clear distinction of the objective at hand.
That’s why we need more open source AI solutions and less proprietary solutions, because whoever controls the AI will be controlling the digital world - be it you or some fat cat sitting on a Smaug hill of money.
EDIT: gawdDAMN there’s a lot of naysayers. I’m not talking stable diffusion here, guys. I’m talking about automated attacks and self developing software, when computing and computer networking reaches a point of AI supremacy. This isn’t new speculation. It’s coming fo dat ass, in maybe a generation or two… or more…
That all sounds pointless. Why would we want to use something built on top of a system that’s constantly changing for no good reason?
Unless the accuracy can be guaranteed at 100% this theoretical will never make sense because you will ultimately end up with a system that could fail at any time for any number of reasons. Predictive models cannot be used in place of consistent, human verified and tested code.
For operating systems I can maybe see llms being used to script custom actions requested by users(with appropriate guard rails), but not much beyond that.
It’s possible that we will have large software entirely written by machines in the future, but what it will be written with will not in any way resemble any architecture that currently exists.
I don’t think so. Having a good architecture is far more important and makes projects actually maintainable. AI can speed up work, but humans need to tweak and review its work to make sure it fits with the exact requirements.
This is who will get replaced first, and they don’t want to see it. They’re the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
“We asked a Chat Bot to solve a problem that already has a solution and it did ok.”
“I gave an LLM a wildly oversimplified version of a complex human task and it did pretty well”
For how long will we be forced to endure different versions of the same article?
Like I said yesterday, in a post celebrating how ChatGPT can do medical questions with less than 80% accuracy, that is trash. A company with absolute shit code still has virtually all of it “execute flawlessly.” Whether or not code executes it not the bar by which we judge it.
Even if it were to hit 100%, which it does not, there’s so much more to making things than this obviously oversimplified simulation of a tech company. Real engineering involves getting people in a room, managing stakeholders, navigating conflicting desires from different stakeholders, getting to know the human beings who need a problem solved, and so on.
LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration, despite all this hype.
Which is why they’re a tool for professionals to amplify their workload, not a replacement for them.
But they could replace CEOs from what I can tell.
AI regularly hallucinates API endpoints that don’t exist, functions that aren’t part of that language, libraries that don’t exist. There’s no fucking way it did any of this bullshit. Like, yeah - it can probably do a mean autocomplete, but this is being pushed so hard because they want to drive wages down even harder. They want know-nothing middle-managers to point to this article and say “I can replace you with AI, get to work!”…that’s the only purpose of this crap.
Plot twist - the AI just cut and paste from stack overflow like real devs.
deleted by creator
It should generate its own acceptance tests and keep asking itself to fix it until they all pass
The difficult part of software development has always been the continuing support. Did the chatbot setup a versioning system, a build system, a backup system, a ticketing system, unit tests, and help docs for users. Did it get a conflicting request from two different customers and intelligently resolve them? Was it given a vague problem description that it then had to get on a call with the customer to figure out and hunt down what the customer actually wanted before devising/implementing a solution?
This is the expensive part of software development. Hiring an outsourced, low-tier programmer for almost nothing has always been possible, the low-tier programmer being slightly cheaper doesn’t change the game in any meaningful way.
removed by mod
Absolutely true, but many direction into implementing those solution with AIs.
Which is why plenty of companies merely pay lip service to it, or don’t do it at all and outsource it to ‘communities’
A test that doesn’t include a real commercial trial or A/B test with real human customers means nothing. Put their game in the App Store and tell us how it performs. We don’t care that it shat out code that compiled successfully. Did it produce something real and usable or just gibberish that passed 86% of its own internal unit tests, which were also gibberish?
It cost less than a dollar to run all those chatbots?
Doubt
Please ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the corresponding electricity that was required to run the servers and infrastructure required to train and use this models, please. Or the master cracks the whip again, please, just say you’ll invest in our startup, please!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Future software is going to be written by AI, no matter how much you would like to avoid that.
My speculation is that we will see AI operating systems at some point, due to the extreme effectiveness of future AI to hack and otherwise subvert frameworks, services, libraries and even protocols.
So mutating protocols will become a thing, whereby AI will change and negotiate protocols on the fly, as a war rages between defensive AI and offensive AI. There will be shared codebase, but a clear distinction of the objective at hand.
That’s why we need more open source AI solutions and less proprietary solutions, because whoever controls the AI will be controlling the digital world - be it you or some fat cat sitting on a Smaug hill of money.
EDIT: gawdDAMN there’s a lot of naysayers. I’m not talking stable diffusion here, guys. I’m talking about automated attacks and self developing software, when computing and computer networking reaches a point of AI supremacy. This isn’t new speculation. It’s coming fo dat ass, in maybe a generation or two… or more…
That all sounds pointless. Why would we want to use something built on top of a system that’s constantly changing for no good reason?
Unless the accuracy can be guaranteed at 100% this theoretical will never make sense because you will ultimately end up with a system that could fail at any time for any number of reasons. Predictive models cannot be used in place of consistent, human verified and tested code.
For operating systems I can maybe see llms being used to script custom actions requested by users(with appropriate guard rails), but not much beyond that.
It’s possible that we will have large software entirely written by machines in the future, but what it will be written with will not in any way resemble any architecture that currently exists.
deleted by creator
I don’t think so. Having a good architecture is far more important and makes projects actually maintainable. AI can speed up work, but humans need to tweak and review its work to make sure it fits with the exact requirements.
deleted by creator
Do managment next and lets see who’s gonna be replaced first
This is who will get replaced first, and they don’t want to see it. They’re the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box.