Maybe the code the AI wrote works perfectly. Maybe it just looks like how perfectly working code is supposed to look, but doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do.
To get to the train tracks on the right, you would normally have dozens of engineers working over probably decades, learning how the old system worked and adding to it. If you’re a new engineer and you have to work on it, you might be able to talk to the people who worked on it before you and find out how their design was supposed to work. There may be notes or designs generated as they worked on it. And so-on.
It might take you months to fully understand the system, but whenever there’s something confusing you can find someone and ask questions like “Where did you…?” and “How does it…?” and “When does this…?”
Now, imagine you work at a railroad and show up to work one day and there’s this whole mess in front of you that was laid down overnight by some magic railroad-laying machine. Along with a certificate the machine printed that says that the design works. You can’t ask the machine any questions about what it did. Or, maybe you can ask questions, but those questions are pretty useless because the machine isn’t designed to remember what it did (although it might lie to you and claim that it remembers what it did).
So, what do you do, just start running trains through those tracks, assured that the machine probably got things right? Or, do you start trying to understand every possible path through those tracks from first principles?
It gives you the right picture when you asked for a single straight track on the prompt. Now you have to spend 10 hours debugging code and fixing hallucinations of functions that don’t exist on libraries it doesn’t even neet to import.
Not to be that guy, but the image with all the traintracks might just be doing it’s job perfectly.
That’s the problem. Maybe it is.
Maybe the code the AI wrote works perfectly. Maybe it just looks like how perfectly working code is supposed to look, but doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do.
To get to the train tracks on the right, you would normally have dozens of engineers working over probably decades, learning how the old system worked and adding to it. If you’re a new engineer and you have to work on it, you might be able to talk to the people who worked on it before you and find out how their design was supposed to work. There may be notes or designs generated as they worked on it. And so-on.
It might take you months to fully understand the system, but whenever there’s something confusing you can find someone and ask questions like “Where did you…?” and “How does it…?” and “When does this…?”
Now, imagine you work at a railroad and show up to work one day and there’s this whole mess in front of you that was laid down overnight by some magic railroad-laying machine. Along with a certificate the machine printed that says that the design works. You can’t ask the machine any questions about what it did. Or, maybe you can ask questions, but those questions are pretty useless because the machine isn’t designed to remember what it did (although it might lie to you and claim that it remembers what it did).
So, what do you do, just start running trains through those tracks, assured that the machine probably got things right? Or, do you start trying to understand every possible path through those tracks from first principles?
Engineers love moving parts, known for their reliability and vigor
Vigor killed me
The one on the right prints “hello world” to the terminal
And takes 5 seconds to do it
Might is the important here
It gives you the right picture when you asked for a single straight track on the prompt. Now you have to spend 10 hours debugging code and fixing hallucinations of functions that don’t exist on libraries it doesn’t even neet to import.
While being more complex and costly to maintain
Depends on the usecase. It’s most likely at a trainyard or trainstation.
The image implies that the track on the left meets the use case criteria