> who cares, just dont shove political opinions into a software project that developers. we are devs not jobless sjw's running around the road with some useless sign board

Here we are, having a technical discussion and here you are, shoving politics into it.

You guys always find a way to say "you can be an LLM maximalist too, you just skipped a step."

The bigger story here is not that they forgot to tell the LLM to run tests, it's that agentic use has been so normalized and overhyped that an entire PR was attempted without any QA. Even if you're personally against this, this is how most people talk about agents online.

You don't always have the privilege of working on a project with tests, and rarely are they so thorough that they catch everything. Blindly trusting LLM output without QA or Review shouldn't be normalized.

Who is normalizing merging ANYTHING, LLM-generated or human-generated, without QA or review?

You should be reviewing everything that touches your codebase regardless of source.

A LOT of people, if you're paying attention. Why do you think that happened at their company?

It's not hard to find comments from people vibe coding apps without understanding the code, even apps handling sensitive data. And it's not hard to find comments saying agents can run by themselves.

I mean people are arguing AGI is already here. What do you mean who is normalizing this?

I fully believe there are misguided leaders advocating for "increasing velocity" or "productivity" or whatever, but the technical leaders should be pushing back. You can't make a ship go faster by removing the hull.

And if you want to try... well you get what you get!

But again, no one who is serious about their business and serious about building useful products is doing this.

> But again, no one who is serious about their business and serious about building useful products is doing this.

While this is potentially true for software companies, there are many companies for which software or even technology in general is not a core competency. They are very serious about their very useful products. They also have some, er, interesting ideas about what LLMs allow them to accomplish.

I am not saying you should be a LLM maximalist at all. I am just saying LLMs need to have a change-test cycle, like humans, in order to be effective. But looks like your goal is not really to be effective at using LLMs, but to bitch about it on the internet.

> Of course, if you fuel off of something like solar or natural gas you can do far better, but a lot of people are just stopping at the point they have electric and then patting themselves on the back as superior.

I don't think making up a smug EV owner is a very substantial comment. I haven't. met anyone who thinks like this. I imagine most people with electric vehicles would be happy if their energy came from cleaner sources.

Yes that's why the #1 EV company king in the US was embedded with the candidate who had practically a campaign line of bringing back coal, and a large portion of his customers were enthusiastic about this.

Yeah Elon is a dangerous dumbass, and people that support Trump voted to burn the planet. Doesn't really change that most EV owners are environmentally conscious, and if anything, had a strong backlash to Elon's dive into backwards politics

EV owners are a dominating reason why Trump came into power. The incredible increase in value of Tesla allowed Elon to buy twitter, and his manipulation of twitter was arguably what pushed the scale just over a balance.

> Would a human perform very differently?

Yes.

> If you object to HN

They didn't even mention HN. Are you saying the people you associate with are just on HN?

Don't spend all your time on HN or weigh your opinions of humanity on it. People on here are probably the least representative of social society. That's not rejecting it, that's just common sense.

Do you really think the user didn't try explaining the problem to the LLM? Do you not see how dismissive the comment you wrote is?

Why are some of you so resistant to admit that LLMs hallucinate? A normal response would be "Oh yeah, I have issues with that sometimes too, here's how I structure my prompts." Instead you act like you've never experienced this very common thing before, and it makes you sound like a shill.

Their point is you're not going to be able to extend it if you didn't understand it in the first place.

"I don't understand the code it's writing, but I know it's smarter than you devs" is not very persuasive.

> Let's say 100 programmers write a function, most (unless it's something very tricky), won't forget to free that particular function. So the most likely tokens are those which do not leak.

You don't free a function.

And this would only be true if the function is the same content with minor variations, which is why LLMs are better suited for very small examples. Because bigger examples are less likely to be semantically similar, and so there is less data to determine the "correct" next token.

> There's a massive amount of reinforcement learning at play, which reinforces good code, particularly verifiably good (which includes no leaks)

This is a really dubious claim. Where are you getting this? Do you have some information on how these models are trained on C code specifically? How do you know whether the code they train on has no leaks?

There are huge projects that everyone depends on that have memory bugs in them right now. And these are actual experts missing these bugs, what makes you think the people at OpenAI are creating safer data than the people whose livelihoods actually depend on it?

This thread is full of people sharing how easy it is to make memory bugs with an LLM, and that has been my experience as well.