• Hector_McG@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      LLMs produce code that is functionally error prone while looking reasonable (in the same way that it produces answers that are grammatically correct, correctly spelled, but factually incorrect).

      As we all know, fixing bugs in someone else’s code is generally more difficult than writing the code correctly in the 1st place , and that’s going to apply to a LLMs code output just as much as a humans, if not more.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s assuming they’re using one of the generic models like ChatGPT and not something custom they’ve created specifically to do this.

      Edit: they are in fact using their own as per the article

      • andscape@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m aware they’re not using a generic model, but that’s not much better. Current custom-made models still fuck up significantly more than humans, and in less predictable ways.

        Even if their custom model is slightly incorrect 1% of the time, that’s still a major problem in critical systems like those.

    • Nora@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The AI would likely be trained or fine tuned specifically for COBOL. In these very narrow use cases AI can find some things that humans can miss.

      Google did this recently on a sorting algorithm and was able to speed it up by 70%: More info here

      • Die4Ever@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s cool for small and easily testable functions like sorting, but to refactor large amounts of code? No thanks. Would be great if it could leave comments on my pull request though.