• Nalivai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s why you use unit test and integration test.

    Good start, but not even close to being enough. What if code introduces UB? Unless you specifically look for that, and nobody does, neither unit nor on-target tests will find it. What if it’s drastically ineffective? What if there are weird and unusual corner cases?
    Now you spend more time looking for all of that and designing tests that you didn’t need to do if you had proper practices from the beginning.

    It would probably a nice idea to do some kind of turing test, a put a blind test to distinguish the AI written part of some code, and see how precisely people can tell it apart.

    But that’s worse! You do realise how that’s worse, right? You lose all the external ways to validate the code, now you have to treat all the code as malicious.

    For instance, to seek for specific functions in C# extensive libraries.

    And spend twice as much time trying to understand why can’t you find a function that your LLM just invented with absolute certainty of a fancy autocomplete. And if that’s an easy task for you, well, then why do you need this middle layer of randomness. I can’t think of a reason why not to search in the documentation instead of introducing this weird game of “will it lie to me”