I don't see why it shouldn't be even more automated than that, with LLM ideas tested automatically by differential testing of components against the previous implementation.

EDIT: typo fixed, thx

▲

happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Defining tests that test for the right things requires an understanding of the problem space, just as writing the code yourself in the first place does. It's a catch-22. Using LLMs in that context would be pointless (unless you're writing short-lived one-off garbage on purpose).

I.e. the parent is speaking in the context of learning, not in the context of producing something that appears to work.

	▲	pfdietz 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure that's true. Bombarding code with huge numbers of randomly generated tests can be highly effective, especially if the tests are curated by examining coverage (and perhaps mutation kills) in the original code.

▲

n_u 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm assuming you meant to type

> I don't see why it *shouldn't be even more automated

In my particular case, I'm learning so having an LLM write the whole thing for me defeats the point. The LLM is a very patient (and sometimes unreliable) mentor.