Message-ID: <687af87f@news.ausics.net>
From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Subject: Re: AI and CODING - Not QUITE There, Yet
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <0OCdnbUmXIIgI-T1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (Linux/2.4.31 (i586))
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Date: 19 Jul 2025 11:44:31 +1000
Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net
Lines: 29
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:69739

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>   AI now CAN do code - within limits, and with
>   limited creativity. They WILL improve this
>   over time however.

Thing is it's hard enough debugging my own code. No way I'd want to
debug code from some crazed AI that doesn't even really know what
it's trying to achieve (which seems to be the gist of the
limitations the article describes).

I would be more interested in an AI to help debug my own code,
though I haven't heard anything about how useful it is for that.
The fun usually stops for me when bebugging begins, so there are
quite a lot of personal projects I stopped as soon as I started
testing them. Would AI help, or just cause me more frustration
trying to get useful information in/out of it rather than out of
the program directly?

I'd even report a lot more bugs in other people's OSS projects if
I could get an AI to document reliable processes to reproduce them
for me. But how to explain the bug to an AI to begin with?... I'd
really need an AI debugging environment to run the software in and
then it would sum up the steps relevant to triggering it (eg. a
seg. fault), and maybe to fixing it. Do such things exist? If so,
they're not being talked about nearly as much. 

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#