Having worked with rust in the past couple years, I can say that it hands down much better fit for LLMs than Python thanks to its explicitness and type information. This provides a lot of context for LLM to incrementally grow the codebase.
You still have to watch it, of course. But the experience is very pleasant.
You’re right. What I like doing in those cases is to review very closely the tests and the assertions. Frequently it’s even faster than looking at the SUT itself.
I heard this “review very closely” thing many times, and rarely means review very closely. Maybe 5% of developers really do this ever, and I probably overestimate it. When people send here AI generated code, it’s quite obvious that they don’t review code properly. There are videos when people recorded how we should use LLMs, and they clearly don’t do this.
Yeah. This is me. I try, but I always miss something. The sheer volume and occasional stupidity makes it difficult. Spot checking only gets you so far. Often, the code is excellent except in one or two truly awful spots where it does something crazy.
I kinda want that what you’re describing… Sort’of the promise that Apple made with their AI and didn’t deliver.
It would be amazing to have chat bot with full contextual awareness.
Until the police, or your insurance company, or your ex wife's attornies, start debriefing that AI. You dont own the AI and you wont have control over what it tells other people about you.
I feel that we’re reaching a limit to our context switching. Any further process improvements or optimizations will be bottlenecked on humans. And I don’t think AI will help here as jobs will account for that and we’ll have to do context switching on even broader and more complex scopes.
I think the limit has been exceeded. That's the primary reason everything sort of sucks now. There is no time to slow down and do things right (or better).
IMO, cyber security, for example, will have to become a government mandate with real penalties for non-compliance (like seat belts in cars were mandated) in order to force organizations to slow down, and make sure systems are built carefully and as correctly as possible to protect data.
This is in conflict with the hurtling pace of garbage in/garbage out AI generated stuff we see today.
Here in the EU cybersecurity is actually being regulated, with heavy fines to come (15 million euros or 2.5% of global turnover!), if it wasn't already. Look up the CRA and the NIS2.
Things may well reach a point elsewhere in the world finding out that some software is for sale in the European Union is itself a marker of quality, and therefore justifies some premium.
These are good developments, but it remains to be seen how much of impact they will have. Software developers will have to follow a bunch of “best practices”, but there isn’t a requirement that they are good at them. There are no fines for producing insecure software, only fines for not following the rules.
Software providers are also likely to be specifying narrow “fit for purpose” statements and short (ish) support window. If costs go up too much, people will be using “inappropriate” and/or EOL stuff because the “right thing” is too expensive.
To be clear, this is a step in the right direction but is not the panacea.
Respectfully, I think you have too much faith in the ability and general desire of individuals to protect themselves. Consider how successful scams and security breaches are. Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?).
We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.
> Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?).
You don't negotiate the contents of your burger with McDonald's. If you don't like it, you go to Burger King or have a Döner Kebab.
There's plenty of tacit negotiations here.
> We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.
Homeopathic medicine tend to follow actual health problems, too. That doesn't mean they are a good idea.
> You don't negotiate the contents of your burger with McDonald's. If you don't like it, you go to Burger King or have a Döner Kebab.
Not every industry is a competitive one with practically unlimited choices. Natural monopolies or industries with high barriers to entry tend to have the most leverage over their customers. Most people have only a single electricity provider, and there are only two major mobile OS vendors worth speaking of.
> Homeopathic medicine tend to follow actual health problems, too. That doesn't mean they are a good idea.
Some work; some don’t. The key is figuring out which solutions are effective and which aren’t. Nobody is proposing keeping fixes around whose costs aren’t worth the benefits to society.
If you sell the computer with the software preinstalled it would still fall under the selling a product part. So if you'd want to actually have a loophole you'd at best be selling the product without any software, and we both know how well that would go with the masses.
Maybe, but I was taking an immense amount of vitamin C as prescribed by the doc to bootstrap the healing process.
So this reveals to me two issues
1. In general side effects of the contrast agent are not communicated properly. If I knew, I might have asked - hey can you do the analysis without the agent?
2. There’s no recommendation to avoid vitamin C prior and right after the MRI, heightening the risk.
I generally agree with you, but! Video or audio calls between EU and the US still have a much higher chance of speaking up at the same time and it’s due to lag. If the latency is decreased by 33% it might be a game changer.
reply