Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I guess we are currently in the special situation, that we as human programmers can understand the output of a coding LLM. That's because programming languages are designed to be human readable. And we had an incentive to learn those languages.

I imagine that machine learning powered coding will evolve to an even blacker box, than it is today: It will transform requirements to CPU instructions (or GPU instructions, netlists, ...). Why bother to follow those indirections, that are just convenience layers for those weak carbon units (urgh)?

Simultaneously, automation will likely lead to fewer skilled programmers in the future, because there will be fewer incentives to become one.

Together those effects could lead to a situation where we are condemned to just watch.



So what do you do when the LLM creates a bug in a multi-million CPU instruction program it generated and you can't prompt it to fix the bug?


Yeah, good question. You could ask the same question for today's or near future coding LLMs used by non programmers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: