Comment by kranner

Comment by kranner 19 hours ago

4 replies

You can't test everything. The input space may be infinite. The app may feel janky. You can't even be sure you're testing all that can be tested.

The code may seem to work functionally on day 1. Will it continue to seem to work on day 30? Most often it doesn't.

And in my experience, the chances of LLMs fucking up are hardly very very low. Maybe it's a skill issue on my part, but it's also the case that the spec is sometimes discovered as the app is being built. I'm sure this is not the case if you're essentially summoning up code that exists in the test set, even if the LLM has to port it from another language, and they can be useful in parts here and there. But turning the controls over to the infinite monkey machine has not worked out for me so far.

CuriouslyC 18 hours ago

If you care about performance, test it (stress test).

If you care about security, test it (red teaming).

If you care about maintainability, test it (advanced code analysis)

Your eyeballs are super fallible, this is why bad engineers exist. Get rigorous.

  • bravetraveler 2 hours ago

    They are so rigorous they want to know the product and test [effectively]. Catch up, testing is also super fallible. Tests will fail, either directly or in spirit.

    I'll leave with a teaser: are you testing what you think you are? Is it relevant? What do, after; buy more tokens?

  • kranner 17 hours ago

    Maybe that works for industrialised production of completely well defined software. I don't think it leads to any kind of creative output.

  • memonkey 8 hours ago

    i feel this totally ignored the point of infinite input space. you only providing 3 scenarios and eye balls rigorous comment is either hilariously patronizing or ironically self aggrandizing.