| ▲ | frumplestlatz 4 hours ago | |
"If it works, ship it" is very different from "If it works, and I understand it because I wrote it, ship it". Does the LLM understand it, in detail? Can you trust its interpretation of the information and instructions you provided? Did it independently make an adverse decision you haven't noticed, because you didn't read the code? Was the model missing any information it required -- and would you know if it was? LLMs depend on humans and human oversight to ensure they have the information required to make the right decisions, to catch when they don't, and to steer them based on your much more complete understanding of the broader context and requirements. You can't rely on them to do that thinking for you (yet?). | ||
| ▲ | fnoef 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
I’d argue that most people also don’t understand code they read from their colleagues. Or if they do, then they don’t understand the entire context of the app. You said LLM need human oversight and it’s true, but it does not imply you have to read the code. I think we are going towards a place where code no longer makes sense, you just describe what you want in English, and the LLM just builds directly in machine code. You then build different verification tests to make sure the program is doing what it’s suppose to do. | ||