You'd have to be an idiot to merge anything from an AI without going through it line by line. Which really is the problem with AI, it's mostly fine if you keep an eye on it but the fact you have to keep an eye on it kind of renders the whole thing pointless.

It's like self-driving cars, if I have to keep an eye on it to make sure it won't randomly crash into a tree I might as well drive the damn thing myself.

There's more to it than that, there's also the cost of implementation.

If a self-driving car killed on average one less human than your average human does, but costs $100,000 to install in the car, then it still isn't worth implementing.

Yes I know that puts a price on human life but that is how economics works.

"AI-answers will be banned." not enough?

destroy open source projects

I do believe that too. The AIs are stealing all the code and remove the licenses, and the OSI recently classified "binary blobs" as open-source. LLM companies need fresh content and will try anything to steal that.

It's automated and exponentially worse. It's not the same thing.

An LLM providing "an opinion" is not a thing

Agreed, but can we just use the common parlance? Explaining completions every time is tedious, and most everyone talking about it at this level always knows. It doesn't think, it doesn't know anything, but it's a lot easier to use those words to mean something that seems analogous. But yeah, I've been on your side of this conversation before and let's just read all that as agreed.

this would not have to reach either a human or an AI agent or anything before getting fixed with little resources

There are tools that do some of this automatically. I picked really low hanging fruit that I still see every single day in multiple environments. LLMs attempt (wrong word here, I know) more, but they need review and acceptance by a human expert.

Perfectly decent looking "minor fixes" that are well worded, follow guidelines, and pass all checks, while introducing an off by one error or suddenly decides to swap two parameters that happens to be compatible and make sense in context are the issue. And those, even if rare (empirically I'd say they are not that rare for now) are so much harder to spot without full human analysis, are a real threat.

I get that folks are trying to fully automate this. That's fucking stupid. I don't let seasoned developers commit code to my repos without review, why would I let AI? Incidentally, seasoned developers also can suggest fixes with subtle errors. And sometimes they escape into the code base, or sometimes perfectly good code that worked fine on prem goes to shit in the cloud—I just had to argue my team into fixing something that executed over 10k SQL statements in some cases on a single page load due to lazy loading. That shit worked "great" on prem but was taking up to 90 seconds in the cloud. All written by humans.

The goal should not be to emulate human mistakes, but to make something better.

I'm sure that is someone's goal, but LLMs aren't going to do that. They are a different tool that helps but does not in any way replace human experts. And I'm caught in the middle of every conversation because I don't hate them enough for one side, and I'm not hype enough about them for the other. But I've been working with them for several years now and watched the grow since GPT2 and I understand them pretty well. Well enough not to trust them to the degree some idiots do, but I still find them really handy.

It's already kind of happening. The Curl project is having a really bad time. No idea if the "bug" submissions are themselves automated, but the content of the filings are pure AI nonsense.

$100K for a safer driver might be well worth it to a lot of people, particularly if it's a one-time charge. If that $100K autopilot can serve for seven years, that's way cheaper than paying a chauffeur.

Detecting the AI answers is an arms-race.

From what I know, those agents can be absolutely fantastic as long as they run under strict guidance of a senior developer who really knows how to use them. Fully autonomous agents sound like a terrible idea.