Why would you ever, outside flight and medical software, care about being 100% sure that the change did not introduce any bugs?

▲

jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because bugs are bad. Fixing one bug but accidentally introducing three more is such a pattern it should have a name.

▲

KptMarchewa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They are. And we have processes to minimize them - tests, code review, staging/preprod envs - but they are nowhere close to being 100% sure that code is bug free - that's just way too high bar for both AI and purely human workflows outside of few pretty niche fields.

	▲	jacquesm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		When you use AI to 'fix' something you don't actually understand the chances of this happening go up tremendously.

▲

miningape an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I propose "the whack-a-hydra" pattern

	▲	jacquesm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Hehe, yes, very apt. It immediately gives the right mental image.

▲

bandrami 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because why would you make something broken when you could make something not broken?

	▲	KptMarchewa 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Because it's way too high bar to be 100% sure outside of few niche fields.