That being said while I agree that measuring better quality of software is vague (part of the reason it is hard for models as well), there are universal things I believe every engineer will agree on. Reliability, uptime, customer feedback, legibility of your engineering, performance, these are things we often optimized for. Google Maps is a bit of a strawman because neither of us (unless you work on it), knows how much agent code there is, I think it is likely that it's little since it was working fine prior to 2023. I could bring up github reliability as an example, given how much copilot usage they promote at MS, but once again only folks there know for certain. I do, however, see scores of various AI powered SAAS that looks like it is in a perpetual MVP state. I think you are right in that even if agents give us "good enough" results and we can swallow failure rates and our increasingly lesser understanding of what we, or more so model, created, then it is still progress overall, but this is progress not to human-AI collaboration but to AI-only engineering IMO, this is good or bad depending on how you view the future.

I'm a scientist and most of code I currently write is somewhere on the intersection of critical software and machine learning, squaring these two is not easy and I guess the way I was taught to reason about engineering informs my opinions on this. Maybe it's just a matter of time before codex can help here in an unconstrained manner as well, but I am skeptical at the moment.

This is a problem of conflicting incentives that exists today in my opinion. Companies will market greater human-AI collaboration in science and engineering but focus on releasing things like this where it is clear that downstream goal is complete agent ownership over the product, from inception to testing to monitoring. Maybe the speculative future agents will use their own very efficient language to code that won't be readable for people at all. They focus on agent code being readable by agent in the article, as you've said. But in my mind in at least near future, there is a case where your prod will break, you won't be able to understand it or the attempted fixes. Maybe agent will fail to fix it at all and start a massive rewrite. In any case is this different from kicking technical debt down the road along with worse interpretability of what you have built?

I do think there is a way where agent can write great solid code that we can read, but with the way LLMs are built this requires something new in terms of reward that accounts for "taste" and constant refinement so it might take more than 1/10th of a time to produce something good.

> Because the repository is entirely agent-generated, it’s optimized first for Codex’s legibility

I asked a question from a perspective of a human engineer, as in, I will have to read the code and understand, fix it once it breaks. OpenAI approach is opposite, even if it is breaking it is the agent that will be doing the fixing, millions of lines and inelegant designs don't matter because human readability doesn't matter. In any case you use more tokens so you fork over more money.

I will say, however, that IMHO there is objectively bad and good code in terms what it can do and performance, if I can do the same thing in 50 lines as opposed to 1000 lines, this difference still matters for the model. Smaller context usage, better approach that informs downstream generation.

And if I am working on an existing codebase then isn't a good commit often a negative sum between added and removed lines? I don't want to bloat my codebase but make it more polished and elegant. After reading that I wonder if what they have done could have been accomplished for a far fewer LoC budget.

When I make a purchasing decision I expect the payment to go trough quickly and correctly and for whatever I purchase to arrive to me in reasonable time. All of this rests on the reputation of software being solid. If a user hears a whiff of purchase not being executed correctly, money or goods going somewhere else, this is the death sentence for your company.

Industry is now pushing for agentic web where agents can do this on your behalf. But if we have slop foundations and then add unstable models that can hallucinate and make mistakes on top of it, then it's just a recipe for catastrophe. I think relegating 2) into category of only mission critical software escapes the reality of how much reliability goes into everyday services people use.

It is an extension of their DGM paper. Also it's ~88M+ tokens per full run I think, not surprising as any sort of exploratory search is expensive and I commend them for releasing the code online because it pushes this small subfield. But people need to temper their expectations. IMO the best part is a nice transfer between improvement objectives after exhaustive iteration that they found. I am wondering if what we have here is a way to exhaust local search space, by letting the model better express it.

On a separate one thing I think a lot about is whether these unchecked hyped claims and terms and marketing of papers actually does more bad than good to the field by setting expectations that cannot be delivered and distracting from the actual hard and unsexy nature of problems that need to be solved.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45738102

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

When I went to see if anyone is selling the boards or their "Partners" page regarding manufacturing design I got 404 even after signing in: https://developers.google.com/coral/guides/coral/resource

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329651

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

On a wider note, I buy the argument for alternative interfaces other than chat, but chat permeates our lives every day, smartphone is full of chat interfaces. HUD might be good for AR glasses though, literal HUD.

I did try Songs of Conquest, it was decent

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44254700

Points: 3

# Comments: 1