I think it's easier to make your point without the baggage of the mechanism assertions.

The code is just wrong a lot. By denying the possibility of emergent phenomemona or model interiority you just hand the hypsters an easy point to score.

The code is just wrong, all the time. You're right about the part that matters and that we can measure.

▲

gatio 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Except... it does produce solid code in many scenarios. A lot of the time we are just applying the same patterns and tools to a specific problem. If you understand the problem, agents can and are producing quality code.

I do a lot with orchestrating cloud infra, provisioning and deprovisioning workflows, lifecycle management, updating CMDBs, access management, deployment automation, auditing configurations, and some APIs in front. The code is boring, mostly glue. The agents nail it quite consistently, especially with some guidance.

I do know what I want out of it, and that is deterministic quality code to solve specific business problems, so that we don't have people (or their agents) running amok.

	▲	reinitctxoffset 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it does do good code sometimes. it does both. we're trying to figure out how to net that out to good overall. right now it's a bit tricky because we didn't build our world for the code to be really good and then disasterously bad all the sudden and then good for a while again and it seems like someone is programming a slot machine. 这波