[latexr]

> So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived?

You are transparently engaging in bad faith by purposefully straw manning the argument. No one is arguing for “far better programmer than any human that has ever lived”. That is an exaggeration used to force the other person to reframe their argument within its already obvious context and make it look like they are admitting they were wrong. It’s a dirty argument, and against the HN guidelines (for good reason).

> Coding agents are basically interns.

No, they are not. Interns have the capacity to learn and grow and not make the same mistakes over and over.

> but even if they're doing things 95% correctly

They’re not. 95% is a gross exaggeration.

[danielbln]

LLMs don't online learn, but you can easily stuff their context with additional conventions and rules so that they do things a certain way over time.

[falcor84]

I strongly disagree that it was bad faith or strawmanning. The ancestor comment had:

> This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time?

This is an entirely unfair expectation. Even the best human SWEs create PRs with significant issues - it's absurd by the parent to say that if a PR is "any good, it wouldn’t need review"; it's just an unreasonable bar, and I think that @latexr was entirely justified in pushing back against that expectation.

As for the "95% correctly", this appears to be a strawman argument on your end, as they said "even if ...", rather than claiming that this is the situation at the moment. But having said that, I would actually like to ask both of you - what does it even mean for a PR to be 95% correct - does it mean that that 95% of the LoC are bug-free, or do you have something else in mind?