this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1362 points (99.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

34474 readers
160 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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?