[applfanboysbgon]

1. I bet that developer only made that mistake one time in their life. Humans learn from their mistakes, LLMs don't. If you rely on LLMs to generate all of your code, you can expect to run into the same issues again and again.

2. "One developer somewhere in the world made a bad mistake one time, so this represents the quality of all software devs everywhere". Maybe they were just a bad developer? Bad developers exist. I have never written a bug that has destroyed my users' hardware, and I think that writing such a bug is completely inexcusable in an enterprise environment with software that will be shipped to millions of users, as Codex is.

[matharmin]

LLMs do learn from mistakes. Not as directly from individual mistakes like humans do, but in aggregate the models have improved much more in the last year than most humans I know learn in the same time.

[xpct]

I don't like the reframing of 'learning from mistakes' from a human-like, near instantaneous feedback loop, to a year-long process of retraining on many traces collected from user data. They're different concepts and we should refer to them using different phrasing.

[lifthrasiir]

> I have never written a bug that has destroyed my users' hardware, ...

Probably whoever (human or agent) originally decided to put TRACE logs into SQLite also thought---or reasoned---so. Maybe the decision was right at that time but the amount of TRACE logs have increased enormously. You will never know.

[applfanboysbgon]

I love that we've moved the goalposts from "LLMs are better than artisanal software engineers" to "actually, shipping hardware-destroying bugs in production is literally unavoidable, nobody could possibly avoid doing it".

[lifthrasiir]

I only meant what I said. After all the OP's thesis was that LLMs aren't better than artisanal software engineers, are they? There was no goalpost to move at least in this particular thread. And the solution might be another agent monitoring those oft-ignored signals.