Hacker News Reader

You're suggesting that LLMs get better at fixing bugs/vulnerabilities, but at the same time stop getting better at finding them? What if this difference is inherent and essential?

View on HN

> You're suggesting that LLMs get better at fixing bugs/vulnerabilities, but at the same time stop getting better at finding them?

Are you implying that all code writing by LLMs atm is bug-free?

Absolutely not. By most accounts they're terrible at fixing anything other than trivial bugs in complex codebases e.g. Linux kernel, but they're much better at finding them.

So you put it in a loop and tell it to find the bugs in the code it wrote. What's the issue?

This is a self confession if I ever saw one.

I absolutely do this. It works great.

What value are you providing in this scenario?

Manual testing, and making sure that the AI didn't create so many bugs.

But, to the underlying question, obviously as we automate more and more of our work, of course we provide less and less value. We're heading towards a future where selling thought for money isn't going to work so well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com