And why can’t expert programmers deploy code without testing it? Surely they should just be able to write it perfectly first time without errors if they were actually intelligent.
Human programmers don't need code reviews, they can test things themselves. Code reviews is just an optimization to scale up it isn't a requirement to make programs.
Also the AGI is allowed to let another AGI code review it, the point is there shouldn't be a human in the loop.
> And why can’t expert programmers deploy code without testing it?
Testing it can be done by themselves, the AGI model is allowed to test its own things as well.
Just not for more complex applications.
Code review does often find bugs in code…
Put another way, I’m not a strong dev but good LLMs can write lots of code with less bugs than me!
I also think it’s quite a “programmer mentality” that most of the tests in this forum about if something is/isn’t AGI ultimately boils down to if it can write bug-free code, rather than if it can negotiate or sympathise or be humerous or write an engaging screen play… I’m not saying AGI is good at those things yet, but it’s interesting that we talk about the test of AGI being transpiling code rather than understanding philosophy.
But the AI still can't replace you, it doesn't learn as it go and therefore fail to navigate long term tasks the way humans do. When a human writes a big program he learns how to write it as he writes it, these current AI cannot do that.
Which keeps growing - Gemini is at 2 million tokens now, which is several books worth of text.
Note also that context is roughly the equivalent of short-term memory in humans, while long-term memory is more like RAG.