> it can optimize its own code
This is an overstatement. There are still humans in the loop to do the prompt, apply the patch, verify, write tests, and commit. We're not even at intern-level autonomy here.
This is an overstatement. There are still humans in the loop to do the prompt, apply the patch, verify, write tests, and commit. We're not even at intern-level autonomy here.
https://github.com/bodo-run/yek/blob/main/.github/workflows/...
https://github.com/bodo-run/yek/blob/main/scripts/ai-loop.sh
Using askds https://github.com/bodo-run/askds
Good business.
When your AI-managed codebase breaks, who are you going to ask to fix it? The AI?
But if it does it could still fix it.
And you won't have to tell it anything, alerts will be sent if a test fails and it will fix it directly.
Come on guys, time to look at it a bit objectively, and decide where we're going with it.
It's a bit maddening to see this happening on a forum full of tech-literate folks.
Ultimately, I think to stay relevant in software development, we are going to have accept that our role in the process could evolve to humans essentially never writing code. Take that one step further and humans may not even be reviewing code.
I am not sure if accepting that is enough to guarantee job security. But I am fairly sure that those who do accept this eventuality will be more relevant for longer than those who prefer to hide behind their "I'm irreplaceable because I'm human" attitude.
If your first instinct is to pick these systems apart and look for things that they aren't doing perfectly, then you aren't seeing the big picture.
- The product engineer: highly if not completely AI driven. The human supervises it by writing specification and making sure the outcome is correct. A domain expert fluent in AI guidance.
- The tech expert: Maintain and develop systems that can't legally be developed by AI. Will have to stay very sharp and master it's craft. Adopting AI for them won't help in this career path.
If the demand for new products continue to rise, most of us will be in the first category. I think choosing one of these branch early will define whether you will be employed.
That's how I see it. I wish I can stay in the second group.
If AI continues to improve - what would be the reason a human is needed to verify the correct outcome? If you consider that these things will surpass our ability, then adding a human into the loop would lead to less "correct" outcomes.
> - The tech expert: Maintain and develop systems that can't legally be developed by AI. Will have to stay very sharp and master it's craft. Adopting AI for them won't help in this career path.
This one makes some sense to me but I am not hopeful. Our current suite of models only exist because the creators ignored the law (copyright specifically). I can't imagine they will stop there unless we see significant government intervention.
There's certainly a bit of irony in the PR, but the code itself is not complex enough to warrant any further hysteria. If you've written SIMD by hand you're probably well familiar with the fact that it's more drudgery than thought work.
As we patch the holes in the AI-code delivery pipeline, those human-involved issues will be resolved as well. Slowly, painfully, but it's just a matter of time at this point?