Not correct but you can plan in the mistakes. E.g: I designed a modular monolith where each module is strongly decoupled so an LLM can work on it individually and if it breaks it can be ripped out and replaced without damage to the rest of the system.

So the system accounts for mistakes and has protocols for removing bad modules/code.

If part of the system go down the rest will remain functional

Edit: and yes audits are part of the pipeline

▲

vkgcr 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure but that means accepting the cost of having faulty modules running in production (and there is no guarantee that your LLM could fix a faulty module, perhaps it will just replace it with a module with different bugs. There's no way to know!)

This obviously won't fly for "serious" software such as airplane software, but I'm willing to guess that even customers of a low-stakes SaaS would get pissed off if your product regularly turns up new bugs.

I think it's easier to just do code reviews...

	▲	hoppp 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are code reviews. At no point did I write no reviews, that's something you inferred. Both me and LLMs are constantly auditing software. In-fact auditing and QA is mainly what I do now and human audits become much easier when it's scoped to modules.