Also one engineer is treating the code as assembly. I've asked some pointed questions about code in his PR and the response was "yeah, I don't know that's what the agent did".

Edit:

To everyone freaking out about the second guy. Yeah, I think being unable to answer questions about the code you're PRing is ill advised. But requirement gathering, codebase untangling, and acceptance testing are all nontrivial tasks that surround code gen. I'm a bit surprised that having random change sets slurped up into someone else's rubber stamped PR isnt the thing that people are put off by.

It got so bad that his Dad, who was an active English and Spanish teacher at another school, was convinced to write one of his papers for him. He got a D.

You can't really run the experiment because to do it you have to isolate a bunch of software engineers and carefully measure them as they go through parallel test careers. I mean I guess you could measure it but it's expensive and time consuming and likely to have massive experimental issues.

Although now you can sort of run the experiment with an LLM. Clean code vs unclean code. Let's redefine clean code to mean this other thing. Rerun everything from a blank state and then give it identical inputs. Evaluate on tokens used, time spent, propensity for unit tests to fail, and rework.

The history of science and technology is people coming up with simple but wrong untestable theories which topple over once someone invents a thingamajig that allows tests to be run.

Perhaps these issues have known solutions? But so far the LLM just clones everything.

So I'm not convinced just using rust for a tool built by an LLM is going to lead to the outcome that you're hoping for.

[Also just in general abstractions in rust feel needlessly complicated by needing to know the size of everything. I've gotten so much milage by just writing what I need without abstraction and then hoping you don't have to do it twice. For something (read: claude code et al) that is kind of new to everyone, I'm not sure that rust is the best target language even when you take the LLM generated nature of the beast out of the equation.]

Constantly sitting around trying to solve problems that nobody has made headway on for hundreds of years. Or inventing theorems around 15th century mysticism that won't be applicable for hundreds of years.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to multiply some numbers by 3 and divide them by 2 ... I'm so close guys.

So when they ask for the real profile it shows in the next unlock a profile that makes it very clear you have a deeply embarrassing ASMR addiction.

It could cross reference your local laws to ensure to not spill the beans on something locally illegal.

You just compute the brains of a bunch of immortal mathematics. At which point it's "very difficult and expensive function to evaluate with absurdly large boundary conditions."

Wait, which theory is that? In church turing theory the computer can compute any computable function.

Why do we think that the computer can model any physical process?

Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model?

For example how much rain is going to be in the rain gauge after a storm is uncomputable. You can hook up a sensor to perform some action when the rain gets so high. This rain algorithm is outside of anything church turing has to say.

There are many other natural processes that are outside the realm of was is computable. People are bathed in them.

Church turing suggests only what people can do when constrained to a bunch of symbols and squares.

Which I assert is semantically equivalent to saying: Human drivers (even when operating at the diminished capacity of not even being present in the car) are less likely to make errors driving a car than AIs.

The machine doesn't suffer. Or if it does nobody cares. People eventually start having panic attacks, the machine can just be reset.

I suspect that the end result is just driving further into the wilderness before reality sets in and you have to call an adult.

It's an interesting story about how even though all metrics show massive losses actually they have massive gains.

Accounting is a rather mature field, so I figure that someone in the past has tried this stunt and there should probably be ways for dealing with it.

Or do they always flame out after losing all the money? Knowing the history here would be informative.

Crazy thing.

Number of times reading the source saved time and clarified why: many.

Number of times reading the documentation saved time and clarified why: never.

Perhaps I've just been unlucky?

EDIT:

The hilarious part to me is that everyone can talk past each other all day (reading the documentation) or we can show each other examples of good/bad documentation or good/bad code (reading the code) and understand immediately.

Interesting factiod. The number of times I've found the code to describe what the software does more accurately than the documentation: many.

The number of times I've found the documentation to describe what the software does more accurately than the code: never.

"Very clever sir. But Im aware of what dark sun is. You'll have to come with me."