That seemingly didn't stop the pro- and against-AI camps in the kernel from continuing to bicker, though.
  • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠English
    0•5 hours ago

    Verifying LLM code isn’t necessarily harder than verifying a human PR. I hope that this also boosts automated test tooling so that it also gets easier to test these PRs, since the focus will shift to review rather than writing.

    • @partofthevoice@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5•4 hours ago

      Verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent human work.

      • @Railcar8095@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0•3 hours ago

        And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work.

        You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies!

        • @partofthevoice@lemmy.zipEnglish
          3•1 hour ago

          The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams.

          Humans burn out.

          https://maevyn.codes/decoherence

          edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse,

          verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work.

          as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk…

          Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all.