This is very obvious unless you are in tech leadership, in which case your job is now to push this at all costs and suppress dissenting voices.

I missed it at first myself, but it’s right near the top under the title and author list: proposed standard.

Um... but it is just a sophisticated statistical model... that's literally what the math underpinning machine learning models is... and all it can do is make associations based on correlations within the field of the training data. That's what it does.

You know the feeling that you want to rewrite a project? But you know that most rewrites are a bad idea.

Be it your own, old code. Or code you inherited.

There is a small chance that the world realizes that they went in the wrong direction and nothing can get fixed. That will be the time of rewrites.

No, I don't expect this to be very likely. The agent code will remain, and human programmers get yelled at for not fixing it fast enough.

To add to the other response - it is much more difficult to work with Ai to debug inconsistent issues or similar unless you can understand the code and step through with a debugger to check for race conditions or similar.

Recently I was working with an Ai tool for some c code that depending on machine ran wildly differently. The Ai was unable to identify any issues, and kept recommending fixes for hardcoding values or similar that I had to revert. The fix ended up needing to use valgrind to create a different enough environment to see how a race condition was made to properly have one async call delay for the other.

AI can be powerful, and humans can be dumb. But if the code was human made, I would not have needed 3 hours to find a problem, and I wouldn't have tried to turn to AI for a simple fix because I'd know what I was looking for to start with.

I'm not very familiar with the format of RFCs. Is this approved and is going to ship to clients and servers, or still a draft?

Thank you for letting us know where you stand. Those who tag users can act accordingly to this public declaration of robo-handjob-giving.

broken in a way that can't be detected

Is not what anyone said and you're lying when you pretend they did.

Our apologies. Let us issue a correction:

"Agents should never be allowed to program"

There.

Let it be known that the first person to call it was actually Sam Altman when OpenAI's paper on AI Scaling Laws in 2020 subtly showed that the diminishing returns will stop showing improvement with infinite power, compute time, and data before 94% accuracy is reached.

It will eventually be detected, but it passes tests before hitting production, that is the problem.

Humans generally don't hallucinate libraries or documentation. If there is a bug or error on a human maintaine repo the human in charge will generally know what went wrong and how to fix it, the AI will just gaslight your ass because the AI has no idea.

No, humans make less mistakes. Less. That's the key here, statistical models are trained on human data so by pure logic can never, ever, under any circuimstance, reach 100% accuracy. With current understanding of LLMs with a focus on AI Scaling Laws, and more importantly of natural human language adaptation, they will never reach 94% accuracy with infinite power and infinite training. That's what the curve shows us in OpenAI's 2020 research paper on AI Scaling Laws and later Deepmind's paper correcting their math, that the diminishing returns will hit a limit far before convergence.

In addition to that, the AI also cannot detect subtle changes to established problems or any new unaccounted for variables, because they're a statistical model and not capable of actual thought. They also lack any sense of responsibility for their actions for the same reason.

You fucking sloppers always try to say "HuMAnS mAkE misTAKeS, TOO!" Yeah and the fucking slopbots are trained on those mistakes and make them again but worse.

It's so nice to see some people speaking reason. If only any of those people ran multibillion dollar companies.

You can fix problems, if you know they are there and there is a model of that problem being fixed.

You can't fix problems you don't know are there, or do not have modeling.

yeah I was kinda like. calling it?

It is never the coder that is responsible, it is the one who makes the code available to use. Often with humans, they are one and the same. With machines, they are not.

A human can be held responsible. A machine cannot. If the machine writes bad code, and someone gets injured or killed because of it, who takes responsibility?

I state again: a machine cannot be held responsible.

But you're forgetting the key difference that makes it so much worse - we can fix human mistakes especially if we can talk to the human to figure out how. With an llm we have no external reference, only poorly designed code where the comments are there to guide the writing, not describe what was written. So it's much harder to debug an output, and the llm cannot be trusted to clean it up either.

if it's broken in a way that can't be detected, is it actually broken?

all software is broken in some way. if the rate of bugs generated by llm and the severity of those bugs drops below the rate you would expect from a human programming team, then llm is offering something competitive.