Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivan888 | Hacker News Reader

Is it like self driving cars, where 100% non-human code would be arguably safer?

But then it always comes down to having some human who is accountable for verifying the behavior. I think ultimately we just need a better set of languages and frameworks to minimally encode the types of applications we want to build today, so that human comprehension and verification of the source code becomes easier.

View on HN

I've noticed that when only AI writes the code, there are cases where it ends up being unusable by humans. For small code snippets or function-level units, AI is often much better than me. But when I look at the whole picture, AI tends to perform poorly.

How would 100% non-human code possibly be safer?

well if driving is supposedly safer when automated, why not code

It’s supposedly safer than the average driver, not safer than professional drivers.

the average american spends 60 minutes a day driving, that's thousands of hours by the time you reach 25... at what point is that not a professional level of experience?

Is it actually safer? If you can't understand the code you can't verify it's safety, and AI code often has bugs in it. You can't trust implicitly.

You don't need to understand code to verify its safety if you have a good QA framework.

Same applies to driving cars

The qualities of computation that make autopilots safer than human drivers aren’t the same qualities that produce better designed software products.

to err is human

Category error. Self-driving cars are still meticulously coded by humans.

They use trained models in the system though, so I don't know if you can really claim that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com