Thread

The problem is not AI code, but not knowing about system architecture or intent

388 points · 240 comments · zazuke

raahelb · 1790614198 · focus · HN ↗
After experience on both ends of the spectrum, I arrived at the position that what we basically need is to be a "Responsible Human in the Loop (RHITL)" [0]
> You may not write the code by hand but you understand it enough to investigate and fix it when it fails. It is how I think we should leverage AI instead of becoming a meat proxy.
[0]: <a href="https://raahelbaig.com/entry/responsible-human-in-the-loop/" rel="nofollow">https://raahelbaig.com/entry/responsible-human-in-the-loop/
1. malfist · 1790614518 · focus · HN ↗
  People keep saying this, but how realistic is that in reality? Even say a person is doing their best to do that, we all know that the alarm that doesn't trip 99% of the time isn't going to be closely monitored. Just look at what happens when people get used to "hands free" cruise control.
  Not only that, but even if we assume best effort on the engineer, the business pressures don't often allow that. I'm under constant pressure to deliver more, faster with less people. The performance eval ladder at my company was just reworked to double the amount of deliverable features expected per job level per year. Our CEO told us we should be able to deliver what took us the past decade to deliver in a quarter, every quarter going forward.
  How could you possibly have a human anywhere near that loop with those demands?
  1. mejutoco · 1790628544 · focus · HN ↗
    That human could write the harness that enforces the guardrails, for example, working at one level higher of abstraction.
    malfist · 1790633355 · focus · HN ↗
    If that was possible it would have been done. AI is a best a mediocre self regulator

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.