qarl

Well - more importantly - with the absurd speed you can iterate insanely fast. It's amazing what you can do when you throw 1000 average programmers at a problem.

People who don't use coding agents really should stop making fools of themselves. It's painful to watch.

You're being silly. With an appropriate dev pipeline it comes out quite nice. A team of agents to design and plan the implementation - a team of coders - and a team of reviewers after the fact.

Here, let's test it. Give me some of your code (GitHub is fine) and we can compare.

> because LLMs produce worse code than the typical

I'm not so sure that's true anymore.

But regardless - no one uses just one coding agent. It's a series of agents - a group to plan the work - coders to implement it - and then agents to review the work. Overall it comes out better than human code.

Here - let's test it - give me your GitHub and we can compare your code to theirs.

> Then you aren't a very good programmer

Ohh.... my sweet summer child...

It's not even about having a real life. Agents objectively code insanely fast and produce more and better code than I could have if I devoted all of my time to it. (When used correctly.)

I get that people really hate AI - but they're being incredibly irrational about it. Baby with the bathwater stuff. It's creepy.

You seem to be of the belief that all AI output is slop.

May I humbly suggest you might be mistaken?

I don't get it.

I've been a developer for 40 years now. Over that time period - I've had a lot of ideas that were great but were simply too difficult for me to execute on my own.

Today I am executing all of them and it feels amazing to see all these beautiful things come to life.

I understand that some people really really really liked coding by hand. More power to them. I just don't understand why they're so angry at me because I prefer the final product.

EDIT: And I get an anonymous downvote within 30 seconds. I don't get it.

Friend, I only used hyperbole to answer yours.

Let's return to actual data: the article we are discussing is experts claiming that AI should be used to report errors in software.

Do you have data to support your side?

EDIT: I did a little research. These projects accept AI contributions: Python, NumPy, SciPy, pandas, scikit-learn, Django, Kubernetes, the Linux kernel, Firefox, Flutter, Homebrew, curl and PyTorch.

Why do you think they do, if it's such a bad idea? Are they all idiots? They have no idea what they're doing? Linus? Really?

> When LLMs actually can reliably do their jobs

LLM agents do a fantastic job of finding exploitable bugs in code. MUCH better than humans.

They would also do a fantastic job isolating the duplicate reports as described above.

So what's your issue?

Yes. They will need to use AI to process the increased load of AI reports.

I hope you understand that software engineering is now going to require the use of AI. In the same way that software engineering requires the use of compilers. Sure, some people refuse... but...

Your argument boils down to "I'm not trusting that bridge! Have you seen how many mistakes astrologers make!!"

I've found that software engineers are good at analyzing the public reports they receive for their own projects.

Let's not over generalize, shall we?

You're going to need to leave the hyperbole behind and use actual facts if you want to continue.

Cite data from the last few months.

No. But when the wolf experts announce that there are a dangerous number of wolves - and you ignore it - that's a problem.

The people writing this article are experts. They cite other experts.

If you can cite real data from the last few months that still claims there are no wolves - and it's not just insane anti-wolf propaganda - I'd love for you to show me.

> I am also comfortable being informed by evidence.

Then look. If you can't judge, then trust the experts. This article is written by experts.

Yes, I would call a crane superhuman strength. I think that's exactly what it should be called.

Requiring the intelligence to be above human is a shifted goalpost. Full stop.

> I don’t feel like the goal posts have moved at all.

10 years ago the Turing test was sufficient.

> Did anyone ever claim that Humans are "general intelligence"?

Right. So you admit that what we're looking for now is super human. Not just human, but more than human.

That's those goalposts I was talking about.

So you admit that most humans can't do it.

> Anyone can do what I said with the minimum amount of training.

I'll bet you ten bucks that is not in the least bit true.

EDIT: Heh - I just did a bit of research - apparently agents do a fine job with simple PCB boards - but we shouldn't expect them to replace experts. "Experts" being the key word. Exactly what I said.

https://hackaday.com/2026/09/05/can-ai-now-design-pcbs-that-...

I wish people fought gasoline refineries as much as they fight data centers.

Exactly. When did AGI mean "do something almost no humans can do"?

So humans wouldn't qualify for AGI either. Good to know.

> we’re already at AGI

Honestly - software that can read any long document (possibly educational) and answer complex detailed questions about it should have been sufficient.

We hit that a while back and the goalposts have been sprinting ever since.

> It is unsatisfying that quantum mechanics posits that particle states are fundamentally probabilistic.

You can alleviate this mostly by accepting the MWI.

Under the MWI, all the possibilities do occur, and the probability manifests because when you split into an infinitude of yous, each of them is just one you, and has no way of predicting which you it will be on the other side.

So the MWI makes the wave equation deterministic when viewed from the outside. The trouble is that we are inside it.

It turns out that God does throw dice - it's just that all the combinations come up at the same time.

Right. So I'm wondering about the relevance of you citing your gut feelings. It seems like you are putting stock in them. No?

That's fine. Just understand that modern science will likely explain this by a malfunction of your senses - because no evidence of paranormal activity has ever been shown.

If you want to argue outside of science you should state it up front - especially on a site like this.

I'm sorry? I'm answering your claim:

> they are incapable ... of independently starting a reasoning task.

I have provided several examples of them independently starting reasoning tasks.

... and I'm wondering why you seem to be entirely unaware of such examples. The most likely explanation being you are only aware of the chat interface.

... and I have absolutely no idea of what you mean by "... and feel".

Yes. In exactly the same way we assume that bigfoot doesn't exist. Or ghosts. Or leprechauns.

This is very basic scientific reasoning, friend.

> Not really. Noone has to prompt you to ruminate.

Why do the internal mechanics need to mirror how it works in humans?

I have agents that receive sensory input (video/audio) which run continuously processing it, receiving events as they occur. When something strange happens they notice and take action (i.e. there's an unrecognized person in the living room -> ask who they are.)

Presumably you've seen the agents that play video games - build things to progress in Minecraft, plan routes, avoid adversaries, etc.

Why doesn't that count?

I feel like you're failing to consider anything outside the chatbot UI.

EDIT: The first morning my agents had access to an outside video stream they commented on the sunrise. While I was sleeping through it.

Maybe. I'm just suspicious of the certainty of the people who are certain of it.

And... I remember (all of six years ago) back when language was considered the pinnacle of the human mind. Sure, animals might be smart, but they don't have language!

The moment LLMs appeared it suddenly took a back seat to physical navigation and child rearing.

Feels like more gap seeking to me. But time will tell.

> And I have yet to have an experience with an LLM...

I hope you agree that this question is too important to leave to gut feelings.

Humans have a poor track record in that regard.

> Why would someone believe that the brain is just a physical system?

Because we've never in the history of science discovered a non-physical (supernatural) system. So it would be quite a surprise.

I agree - many are. But there's another camp to watch - LeCun/etc don't believe in a soul but also don't believe that LLMs are capable, because they don't contain the right neural network.

I'd argue that they're still intuitively trying to keep intelligence in the gaps, as humans like to do. Or maybe they're mad they bet on the wrong horse... or maybe both. Hard to say.