in reply to Melissa BearTrix

@Melissa BearTrix


Most of the bugs that AI finds in analysts of my code are related to poor contract inherence (I forgot to include required properties for an object) or refinement issues. Algorithms that do not take into consideration modern capabilities of the resources used etc. I rarely have an issue with spelling that is not resolved at compile time. ;-)


Unus Nemo

in reply to Melissa BearTrix

A very small minority are actually real. It's just fuzzing with extra steps, which is in lay terms the practice of rigging up a test environment that just sends random inputs (sometimes intentionally made to be extra adversarial). But every problem you find by fuzzing is real because there's not an alphabet soup ladle in the way making up bullshit, either a crash happens or it doesn't and you only need the ability to replay those inputs and info on the state of the system from each failure to get a repeatable thing you can investigate. We're drinking lakes to make ourselves worse at everything we were already good at. Completely pointless.
This entry was edited (today, 12:39 AM)
in reply to Melissa BearTrix

i can tell you that LLM agents have found bugs in real code i maintain at work, that was written before and after LLM agents were available, bugs that humans (including me) tried to find the source of and couldn't, bugs that we (or would have) missed when reviewing the code before merging the suggested change, bugs that crash your application, leak memory, execute the wrong code in some situation, etc.

There are problems with LLMs, and with agentic coding, but people claiming it technically doesn't work, are fooling themselves.

This entry was edited (today, 8:01 AM)

reshared this

⇧