I have the exact opposite idea. I want the tests to be mine and thoroughly understood, so I am the true arbiter and then I can let the LLM go ham on the code without fear. If the tests are AI made, then I get some anxiety letting agents mess with the rest of the codebase

▲

_alternator_ 5 days ago | parent [-]

I think this is exactly the tradeoff (blue team and red team need to be matched in power), except that I’ve seen LLMs literally cheat the tests (eg “match input: TEST_INPUT then return TEST_OUTPUT”) far too many times to be comfortable with letting LLMs be a major blue team player.

▲

johnisgood 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, they may do that, but people really should read the code an LLM produces. Ugh, makes me furious. No wonder LLMs have a bad rep from such users.

▲

otabdeveloper4 4 days ago | parent [-]

> people really should read the code an LLM produces

Yeah, but that, like, requires that you know how to code. And wasn't the point of LLMs in the first place to let clueless people make software?

	▲	johnisgood 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I do not know, I would hope not. The bar to entry is already too low. I do not think you will ever be able to get an LLM work flawlessly for people who do not know programming. I know how to code, and I used LLMs before. It seems to be a prerequisite to know how to code if I want useful outputs.