[tripleee]

> now that humans write less than 99% of code, the most important criteria for a language isn't readability

please tell me you're reading the AI code

[esikich]

Have it run fuzz and test suites. Get with it man. Most of my LLM projects have massive test suites that do a far better job then I ever would have.

[jbstack]

So you're fine with your code having unintended behaviour, as long as that unintended behaviour passes a test that the agent wrote?

My preferred approach is to read and understand everything the LLM produces AND have it create test suites (which I also read and understand). The LLM can help you with that too - just have it breakdown and explain the code at each iteration.

[energy123]

If it's code for a pacemaker, it should be reviewed by multiple humans. If it's code for an unimportant side project, I will never read it. Between those extremes are shades of grey.

Part of our job in this new era is to understand the worst-case consequences of a bug given how the code interacts with the world, then allocate our effort based on that understanding. This can only be done on a case by case basis.

[computerex]

Not really. I test the output thoroughly, I examine the thinking process, I go through the diff to see if anything jumps out but I my thinking process/the way I work has changed. Low level programming thinking has gotten atrophied it seems.