Basically all the examples of LLM's building impressive things have been because they have human written tests to base the implementation on. If you have an LLM write the tests the results are far less impressive or valuable.

▲

bharatsuthar an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes and LLMs are known to cheat on tests written by them.

	▲	slopinthebag an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's not always cheating either. They aren't intelligent, so they don't actually understand the purpose of the tests or can build them to define the actual semantics of the problem space. It's literally just next-token prediction based on the codebase and prompt. Cheating implies that they have agency, and ironically agents don't.