You must really have your head in the sand if you truly believe AI will not soon be very close to, if not better than, humans at writing code.

▲

runarberg a day ago | parent [-]

That is simply not technologically possible. You are speaking in science fiction here. You cannot train a neural network on existing things and then by some magic have the model be better then the training data. The laws of statistics prohibit it.

▲

CuriouslyC 14 hours ago | parent [-]

For code you can do better than humans on a lot of metrics pretty easily bro. This is because you can RL on objective verified outputs. Kind of like how RL was used to make agents wipe the floor with humans in Dota2, chess and go.

RLing taste and discernment are harder, but don't doubt that researchers can get a model that produces a more performant solution than you, while using less code, and being more secure/robust/etc, in a fraction of the time. Your moat for the moment is alignment with stakeholders and high level taste, enjoy it while you can.

	▲	runarberg 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All your examples used little to no human created data and a very simple success criteria. LLMs on the other hand take massive amount of human created data (like almost all the human created data there is) and their success criteria is how well it predicts the next token. In other words, the success criteria of vibe coding models is how much it resembles the human created data. The more it resembles, the better the model.