| ▲ | throwaway27448 4 hours ago |
| Technical details aside, this volume is ridiculous. How on earth do they see this kind of "growth" as an asset and not a liability? |
|
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is obviously just a response to https://www.anthropic.com/research/redesigning-source-contro.... Probably no one in the chain of writing this even thought about your question. |
|
| ▲ | ctkhn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Instead of keeping it simple, they decided to go stupid. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ralph84 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because this kind of growth is how they get to RSI. |
| |
| ▲ | wilkystyle 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whereas previously, creating this amount of code by hand would simply result in RSI. | |
| ▲ | oblio 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should talk to a orthopedist, in that case. |
|
|
| ▲ | warkdarrior 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Technical details aside, this volume is ridiculous. How on earth do they see this kind of "growth" as an asset and not a liability? That coding volume is a liability only for human engineers, with their limited memory, short attention span, tiredness, and quirky coding preferences. LLMs don't have any of those problems. |
| |
| ▲ | zdragnar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Every bit of code is more context getting soaked up in future agent runs. More context used = worse output. More tests need to be written, then fixed, using up more compute, time and context without adding value compared to a more thoughtful, efficient implementation. | | |
| ▲ | warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > using up more compute, time and context LLM compute is getting cheaper, so one can re-run the coding agent until it produces the desired result. > without adding value compared to a more thoughtful, efficient implementation Thoughtful implementations require thoughtful developers, and thoughtful developers cost more money that dumb GPUs. | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not just the GPUs that I was referring to, but also the time spent in test runners locally and in CI. There's also the possible runtime cost of extraneous abstractions, but that's beside the point I was getting at. Thoughtful developers do take money, but so too does shitty code that reaches a point LLMs struggle to maintain. Having both- with the thoughtful developers in charge- is better than just throwing more LLMs at it and hoping for the best. | | |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You can't make these argument against the position that all these problems will be solved. Any problem you point to, someone would argue that an LLM can solve. Expensive compute? costs could get 1000x cheaper. Longer context gets worse output? Newer models would solve that. Ever increasing massive codebase? We'll get a 1B or a 1T context window. Time spent in test runners? parallelize, or selectively select tests, or even better; ask the LLM to optimize the tests or develop a 100x faster chips. Runtime cost of extraneous abstractions? Ask the LLM to keep functionality and focus on performance. If you seriously believe we have "solved coding" or achieved AGI in coding, what is not possible? Any argument you can come up with will be easily dismissed with "we'll just ask the AGI to solve that problem". |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mrbungie 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not necessarily. High LoC software is a potential bad design smell (without a counterfactual for the same level of functionality it might not be easy to tell though). Badly designed code entering an agent context is always a liability, because it contaminates decisions down the road, and makes new work slower as it needs more tokens to process and navigate old code. | |
| ▲ | throwaway27448 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, but you also don't know what your LLM is doing without running into these same limitations. So how is this an improvement? | | |
| ▲ | rubikscube09 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | who cares what the llm is doing? most of the time when there is disagreement, the llm is right and you are wrong anyways. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway27448 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How would you know? | | |
| ▲ | rubikscube09 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do I know my calculator is outputting the correct answer to a 10 by 10 digit multiplication problem? | | |
| ▲ | foltik 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because someone understood and verified it. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent [-] | | And that some one can be an LLM. Does your manager at your job review every line of code you wrote or trust you based on your competence and reviews only a compressed portion? Frankly, these discussions are tiring because there's a false notion that humans have to be in the loop 100% of the time. This is untrue. LLMs are accurate enough that they can be left to do things on their own and human intervention is needed only for out of distribution instances. |
|
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's an LLM. It is by definition smarter than you, and my shareholders know it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not sure why this is downvoted. This is the correct answer. Code is mostly written by and for agents with the option for humans to read it from time to time. This kind of fallacy keeps repeating time and time again. Another version of this fallacy goes like this: "agents can create a lot of code but humans have to review each PR anyway so reviewing is a massive bottleneck". This doesn't make sense because reviewing is also done by agents and humans don't have to read every line. |
|
