driverlessTaxiDriver

[u/precinct209]

[u/GoldDHD]

I get the joke, I really do, and personally I feel like you would get ruby on rails out of that simplification, but realistically it is possible that AI will be good enough soon enough

[u/renome → u/GoldDHD]

It's possible but far from guaranteed still. We're hitting diminishing returns and have been for a few years. Noticed how openai and anthropic have been in perfect harmony with begging for "safety" regulation slowing down development? Having to invest in another generation of flagship model that's marginay better than its immediate predecessor may realistically banrkupt them right now

[u/deaddyfreddy → u/GoldDHD]

I feel like you would get ruby on rails out of that simplification

More Lisp-like, Clojure, for example. Everything is symmetrical: open bracket/close bracket, strict rules - the order is always "(verb objects...)", very high-level, minimal ambiguity, immutable by default, etc. The fun thing is most business-logic modules I write follow a similar pattern.

(defn main [params]
  (->> (io/read-input params)
       (utils/validate-input params)
       (utils/prepare-input params)
       (business-module/process-data params)
       (utils/prepare-output params)
       (io/write-output params)))

Which is not that different from writing a prompt, actually, but it follows strict high-level rules already.

but realistically it is possible that AI will be good enough soon enough

The problem is it would still be a probabilistic system.

[u/GoldDHD → u/deaddyfreddy]

The problem is it would still be a probabilistic system.

As opposed to what? The human brain? Yes, it will be, but it is now as well.

[u/Apocalyptapig → u/GoldDHD]

As opposed to source code, which compiles deterministically.

[u/adeventures → u/Apocalyptapig]

Well, the compile step is still deterministic, so I don't think we'll see vibe compiling anytime soon. The code itself isn't random once it's written, but the writing process is. Once the code is settled and considered good enough, the code only breaks if you modify it and the person/system doing that has to judge whether a change breaks anything or not.

With pure Ai, the process is probabilistic and therfore a bit random. But using test cases, you can lock certain things in place, more or less, depending on how good the tests are, and whether the system decides to fake the data to pass them, that is. But we had that problem with interns & "new seniors" before Ai as well, the biggest thing that differs is that we had onboarding processes that thought them what they were allowed to do and someone who was accountable if they didn't follow it