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•43m ago
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•45m ago
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•28m ago
'can', or 'want'...
F7F7F7•17m ago
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•15m ago
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•13m ago
The article mentioned the exact opposite.
MBCook•7m ago
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.
ferguess_k•46m ago
Tanjreeve•43m ago