Any human written code can and will introduce UB.
Also I don’t see how you will take more that 5 second to verify that a given function does not exist. It has happen to me, llm suggesting unexisting function. And searching by function name in the docs is instantaneous.
I you don’t want to use it don’t. I have been more than a year doing so and I haven’t run into any of those catastrophic issues. It’s just a tool like many others I use for coding. Not even the most important, for instance I think LSP was a greater improvement on my coding efficiency.
It’s like using neovim. Some people would post me a list of all the things that can go bad for making a Frankenstein IDE in a ancient text editor. But if it works for me, it works for me.
Any human written code can and will introduce UB.
And there is enormous amount of safeguards, tricks, practices and tools we come up with to combat it. All of those are categorically unavailable to an autocomplete tool, or a tool who exclusively uses autocomplete tool to code.
Also I don’t see how you will take more that 5 second to verify that a given function does not exist. It has happen to me, llm suggesting unexisting function. And searching by function name in the docs is instantaneous.
Which means you can work with documentation. Which means you really, really don’t need the middle layer, like, at all.
I haven’t run into any of those catastrophic issues.
Glad you didn’t, but also, I’ve reviewed enough generated code to know that a lot of the time people think they’re OK, when in reality they just introduced an esoteric memory leak in a critical section. People who didn’t do it by themselves, but did it because LLM told them to.
I you don’t want to use it don’t.
It’s not about me. It’s about other people introducing shit into our collective lives, making it worse.
You can actually apply those tools and procedures to automatically generated code, exactly the same as in any other piece of code. I don’t see the impediment here…
You must be able to understand that searching by name is not the same as searching by definition, nothing more to add here…
Why would you care of the shit code submitted to you is bad because it was generated with AI, because it was copied from SO, or if it’s brand new shit code written by someone. If it’s bad is bad. And bad code have existed since forever. Once again, I don’t see the impact of AI here. If someone is unable to find that a particular generated piece of code have issues, I don’t see how magically is going to be able to see the issue in copypasted code or in code written by themselves. If they don’t notice they don’t, no matter the source.
I will go back to the Turing test. If you don’t even know if the bad code was generated, copied or just written by hand, how are you even able to tell that AI is the issue?
The things I am talking about are applied to the development process before you start writing code. Rules from NASA’s the power of 10, MISRA, ISO-26262, DO-178C, and so on, as well as the general experience and understanding of the data flow or memory management. Stuff like that you fundamentally can’t apply to a system that takes random pieces of text from the Internet and puts it into a string until it looks like something.
There is an enormous gray zone between so called good code (which might actually not exist), and bad code that doesn’t work and has obvious problems from the beginning. That’s the most dangerous part of it, when your code looks like something that can pass your “Turing test”, that’s where the most insidious parts get introduced, and since you completely removed that planning part and all the written in blood rules it introduced, and you eliminated experience element, you basically have to treat all the code as the most malicious parts of it, and since it’s impossible, you just dropped your standards to the ground.
It’s like pouring sugar into concrete. When there is a lot of it, it’s obvious and concrete will never set. When there is just enough of it, it will, but structurally it will be undetectably weaker, and you have no idea when it will crack.
