Don't forget that you can adjust your requirements (either via plan or skill) to ensure the mistakes do not happen. The problem is that neither LLMs, nor humans (that don't work with the domain) will know they made these mistakes. Even coders don't think about everything all the time

▲

brazzy 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Don't forget that you can adjust your requirements (either via plan or skill) to ensure the mistakes do not happen.

No, you can't. Adjusting prompts ensures absolutely nothing.

▲

eithed 5 days ago | parent [-]

I disagree. What I should have added is that with agents (as well as humans) you do need to have tests that verify what was done.

▲

brazzy 5 days ago | parent [-]

That assumes you can write automated tests that reliably identify the mistakes over an entire codebase. Nice idea in theory. If it were actually possible, we would long since have generalized libraries of tests to catch every significant security and performance gotcha. What we have are static code analysis tools, fuzzers, etc. None of which have come close to eliminating security and performance problems. I don't see how AI somehome changes that.

	▲	eithed 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, my mind went straight to static analysis and testing (unit, feature, uat, mutation). Thanks for expanding on your point!