45 points magoghm 1 hour ago 8 comments
ferguess_k 42 minutes ago | parent
I guess with LLM as the reviewer, it is going to take a lot longer to be Zero Defect, unless they use LLM as the coder, too.
Tanjreeve 38 minutes ago | parent
The coding loop and the review loop are orthogonal and probably should remain so. Not least because it's probably worth the money for more intelligent models for code reviews where it's a more focused task while coding loops are all over the place.
Tanjreeve 41 minutes ago | parent
This is the happy path for LLM assisted coding. Obviously consumes less tokens being more constrained and focused so it's not what gets the most marketing but having the second loop of code reviews seems worth investment even if the coding loop is entirely manual or you're in full LLM autopilot mode
muslimpeacepriz 24 minutes ago | parent
'can', or 'want'...
F7F7F7 12 minutes ago | parent
Training data is filled with shortcuts, conveniences, bugs, hacks, hacks that fix other hacks, hot fixes, patches, mappings that map the hack to hack to a better solution and all types of other surprises.
That's the cost of trying to scale so quickly. You dont filter out the crap.
A nice side effect is that the best way to fix it is more AI.
It's a endless money loop.
ameliaquining 10 minutes ago | parent
From the article: "He was also at pains to point out that the reverts were not down to 'vibe coding' in development, as the technique was not available when most of the new features were written."
Daishiman 8 minutes ago | parent
The article mentioned the exact opposite.
MBCook 2 minutes ago | parent
I remember an LWN article on this question a few weeks ago. The debate was going on and they weren’t sure if it was that there were more bugs or just that because of AI they suddenly knew about more bugs than usual.
Either way, unfortunate but a very understandable decision.