I am currently using a Claude skill that I have been building out over the last few days that runs through my Amazon PPC campaigns and does a full audit. Suggestions of bid adjustments, new search terms and products to advertise against and adjustment to campaign structures. It goes through all of the analytics Amazon provides, which are surprisingly extensive, to find every search term where my product shows up, gets added to cart and purchased.

It's the kind of thing that would be hours of tedious work, then even more time to actually make all the changes to the account. Instead I just say "yeah do all of that" and it is done. Magic stuff. Thousands of lines of Python to hit the Amazon APIs that I've never even looked at.

▲

scottLobster 6 hours ago | parent [-]

And it doesn't freak you out that you're relying on thousands of lines of code that you've never looked at? How do you verify the end result?

I wouldn't trust thousands of lines of code from one of my co-workers without testing

▲

gopher_space 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's thousands of lines of variation on my own hand-tooling, run through tests I designed, automated by the sort of onboarding docs I should have been writing years ago.

▲

notAnAIBot768 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you trust the assembly your compiler puts out? The machine code your assembler puts out? The virtual machine it runs on? Thousands of lines of code you've never looked at...

▲

scottLobster 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

None of that is generated by an LLM prone to hallucination and is perfectly deterministic unless there's a hardware problem.

And yes, I have occasionally run into compiler bugs in my career. That's one reason we test.

	▲	notAnAIBot768 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> None of that is generated by an LLM How did you verify that? > prone to hallucination You know humans can hallucinate? > is perfectly deterministic We agree then that you can verify, test, and trust the deterministic code an LLM produces without ever looking at it. > That's one reason we test That's one way we can trust and verify code produced by an LLM. You can't stop doing all the other things that aren't coding. I get there's a difference. Shitty code can be produced by LLMs or humans. LLMs really can pump out the shitty code. I just think the argument that you cant trust code you haven't viewed is not a good argument. I very much trust a lot of code I've never seen, and yes I've been bitten by it too. Not trying to be an ass, more trying to figure out how im going to deal for the next decade before retirement age. Uts going to be a lot of testing and verification I guess

▲

bobanrocky 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Compiler theory and implementation is based on mathematical and logic principles. And hence much more provable and trustworthy than a LLM thats stitching together pieces of text based on ‘training’

▲

bandrami 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Trust"? God no. That's why I have a debugger