[bluGill]

You cannot understand everything. That has been the case since long before AI. I have a vague idea how the linux kernel works, and I could figure it out (I once found and fixed a bug in FreeBSD device drivers) - but I don't, I just trust it works. I've never looked at sqlite to understand how it works - I know enough SQL to be dangerous and trust it works. I know very in depth how the logging framework of my project works - maintaining that code is part of my day job and so I need to know, but the hundreds of other developers in the company that use it trust it works. Meanwhile my co-workers are writing code that I don't understand, I trust they do it well until proven otherwise.

AI is very useful, but it so far doesn't write the type of code I can trust. Thus I use it but I carefully review everything it does.

[kennethops]

>You cannot understand everything.

I 100% agree with this in a individual person sense, but in a humanity sense someone does understand linux very deeply and is very intentional on how they change it which to me is how I gain trust in it.

does trust change when the entire SLDC is AI?

[bluGill]

Linux is less then 40 years old. Most of the people who designed it are still alive. How will the situation be in 40 years when the current maintainers are dead? (reiserfs comes to mind - it was just becoming great when [censored] and filesystems in linux went backward for many years, will that be allowed to happen next time?)

There are systems still in use from the 1960s (maybe before) - the original authors are at least retired and likely dead. I question how well the replacements understand all that. Sure they have had to dig in and understand some parts, but what about the parts that just keep working and don't need new features?

[aetherson]

Genuine question: is there a big inherent difference between "I don't understand this thing but I think this other human does," and "I don't understand this but I think this other AI does"?

If your answer is "yes," do you think that's inherent to the (metaphysical?) fact of it being AI or to specific limitations to current AI? If the latter, what changes to AI would let you trust it?

[bluGill]

I don't know. AI has an understand of some really complex things, but it also does some really stupid things. Depending on which it did most recently for me I change my answer.

The question is does AI understand well enough to maintain that thing for whatever maintenance I need to do in the future?

[aetherson]

People also do some really stupid things, I'll just throw out.

But it also kind of sounds like you're just saying that there's a scalar of "get a little better" before you'd trust AI with something.

[bluGill]

Also I'm reserving the right to discover other areas of concern. But yes overall I'm waiting to see if it gets better by enough.

[irickt]

SDLC ? software development life cycle ?

[kennethops]

Yeah, software development life cycle.

[valdork59]

"In short, I suggest that the programmer should continue to understand what he is doing, that his growing product remains firmly within his intellectual grip. It is my sad experience that this suggestion is repulsive to the average experienced programmer, who clearly derives a major part of his professional excitement from not quite understanding what he is doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most undernourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineer, who is secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks he takes in his daring irresponsibility. For his frustrations I have no remedy......"