|
|
|
|
|
|
by qarl2
10 days ago
|
|
|
Oh good - so you don't see the agents themselves as inherently sloppy - that's just how they're being used by some people. Because I must warn you - it's extremely easy to ask a coding agent to prove code correctness before committing his work. |
|
|
But that doesn't mean they don't have >0% failure modes, often in very non-human, unexpected, even dangerous ways.
Whether that's "sloppy"?
Eh, it's just the nature of the tool, like a perfect screwdriver that randomly strips 1% of screws.
> it's extremely easy to ask a coding agent to prove code correctness
That statement is categorically wrong.
If you're talking about a formal proof for non-trivial, real-world code, no.
If you're talking about a comprehensive set of tests... well, I'd challenge you to elucidate how you see creating a comprehensive set of tests as trivial.
And if the answer is more LLM... then I think we're at a fundamental disagreement about what satisfies "guarantee" or "provable".