←back to thread

423 points serjester | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
narmiouh ◴[] No.43536781[source]
I feel like OP would have been better of not referencing the viral thread about a developer not using any version control and surprised when the AI made changes, I don't think anyone who doesn't understand version control should be using a tool like cursor, there are other SAAS apps that build and deploy apps using AI and for people with the skill demonstrated in the thread, that is what they should be using.

It's like saying rm -rf / should have more safeguards built in. It feels unfair to call out the AI based tools for this.

replies(4): >>43537400 #>>43537480 #>>43537532 #>>43546631 #
danso ◴[] No.43537480[source]
I think it's a useful anecdote because it underscores how catastrophically unreliable* agents can be, especially in the hands of users who aren't experienced in the particular domain. In the domain of programming, it's much easier to quantify a "catastrophic" scenario vs. more open-ended "real world" situations like booking a flight.

* "unreliable" may not be the right word. For all we know, the agent performed admirably given whatever the user's prompt may have been. Just goes to show that even in a relatively constricted domain of programming, where a lot (but far from all) outcomes are binary, the room for misinterpretation and error is still quite vast.

replies(1): >>43538118 #
1. namaria ◴[] No.43538118[source]
More than that, I think it's quite relevant, because it shows that the complexity in the tooling around writing code manually is not so inessential as it seems.

Any system capable of automating a complex task will by need be more complex than the task at hand. This complexity doesn't evaporate when you through statistical fuzzers at it.