People predict that in 50 years, no human will be driving a car, and people will be shocked that we let humans drive cars manually. Coding may be the same. So many vulnerabilities in code written by very competent programmers. Manually building large, complex systems without major bugs or security vulnerabilities seems to be a nearly impossible challenge.

▲

3836293648 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I hope this will never be the case. As long as we have personal vehicles they should be personally controlled. Self driving cars is such a waste of everyone's money.

Cities should all have better public transport and out in the middle of nowhere you don't need self driving anyway. (And yes, personal cars should be entirely banned from cities)

▲

brightbeige 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And to consider AI agents are still mostly entirely limited to generating code in token-heavy programming languages designed to be written, tested and debugged by humans.

Here are two experimental exceptions:

https://github.com/vercel-labs/zerolang

https://github.com/sbhooley/ainativelang

	▲	dmix 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not just the languages but frontend/user interfaces as well. You can see the potential for the future when using Claude Design->Claude Code->Agents live testing in BrowserOS. It's all modeled on existing humans patterns of using Figma passing to devs then testing after the fact before starting the loop again, while a lot gets lost in translation in between the designs and the code. We'll like have some standard AI-focused UI libraries that are harnessed into a design gen system where an AI can pull all the real levers, while also developing a large training data set around it.

▲

Oarch 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I reckon that in 50 years the very idea of code existing will be esoteric knowledge, a bit like binary. We simply won't care to think at that level of abstraction anymore.

	▲	Gigachad an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In 50 years the world itself will be unrecognisable. The world could be a smouldering wreck by then.

▲

vb-8448 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just wonder how many of those 1451 acknowledged findings were introduced by LLMs ...

▲

morpheos137 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

there is little evidence for this prediction.

▲

scotty79 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What evidence would you expect to see if that was the case?

▲

cubefox 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The rapid progress in the last few years in this regard is pretty strong evidence in my opinion.

▲

morpheos137 3 hours ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48225426

there is a difference between a stunt and a viable product. diverless cars and agi are the fusion of Silicon Valley.

	▲	cubefox 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Unlike fusion, driverless cars are already a reality, there are just have a few kinks to work out. LLMs are also pretty close to AGI already. 50 years are more than enough to figure it out.

▲

sp527 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh there's plenty of evidence. Because a lot of these people have been committing to repos in public for over a decade. Wouldn't take much to show the world just how fallible human coders really are.

▲

cheesefck 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Musk has been predicting self driving cars next year for fifteen years. Fifty years ago, everyone was going to be flying supersonic all the time. Flying cars were just around the corner. Interplanetary travel. Everyone forgets the technology that fails.

This is the MoviePass era of language models

	▲	Flere-Imsaho 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Actually I think with flying cars it's more of a problem with noise, regulation, risk, etc than a technological problem. Supersonic again is a problem with noise and cost rather than technological. Self driving is definitely a technological problem.