So you’re saying no code would be worth error checking by a human at all? There is no level of simpler code that an AI could get wrong and would need someone to fix it?
My assumption is that it would even be the other way around, AI checking all human code, especially writing all the tests. So I guess AI would also write tests for it’s own code too.
When it comes to humans, I think they would probably be changing the prompt they give to AI instead of changing the code at the end. You can already see how it’s done with generation of pictures, while theoretically you could take a not so perfect AI picture and use Photoshop to fix it, but most of the time people change the prompt instead and regenerate the picture.
The generation of pictures is full of fuckups like giving people extra legs, so I’m not sure that’s a very good example.
I’m not sure why you think it’s not a good example. The picture itself is code (PNG, JPEG, etc.) which some AI wrote and no human at the company has checked but it gets delivered to the customer who pays for it. It’s not as good as if a human would do it, but it’s way way way cheaper so you can generate a couple of times until you get what you want. So in this domain humans already are losing jobs to AI even though AI is so bad that it is giving people extra legs, etc.
The same thing happens with hallucinations of ChatGTP, which despite that is still preferable by customers to a human assistant who would summarize articles, etc. with much better quality but very low speed and very expensive.
Code is not much different from summaries of longer texts.
