Not sure how anyone trusts their output without going through it line by line to make sure they don't pull that crap.
In what ways is a human brain's "intent" distinct from the "intent" shown by a goal-directed AI system?
We are in a situation where a technology was developed with malicious intent to produce results that pleases us at the cost of cutting corners. And "we" hope that we will get away with it.
Yeah, I know, just more slop. But I do think the second agent’s eagerness to please is aligned more in your favor in that instance, so it’s likely to find most issues.
The bigger problem I’ve found is that it’ll also find all kinds of very minor edge cases that you have to pick through.
Asking slightly tongue in cheek but at what point does this stop making sense if we can't trust the output, the people creating the models are already getting surprised in bad ways (if we take their words at face value) with how the models are behaving already etc.
We have the folks over here saying "AI is amazing" and the other other folks over there saying "AI is terrible".
I've largely sat it out so far and I listen to both camps (and people in the middle as well) and I keep half an eye on what they are up to (including periodically evaluating them) but my overarching impression is still "Why would we trust this when it hasn't shown it's trustworthy?"
But I wouldn’t say I “trust” these agents. The degree to which I double check their work depends heavily on the consequences if it gets something wrong. Not too dissimilar from another human dev in that sense.
So for the SaaS that supports my family, there are some things I have it build where I glance at the PR for a minute or two, but if it broke something on this admin page that only I see, there’s no real downside and I’ll find out pretty quickly next time I use it. And it’s fine 95% of the time, so it doesn’t feel like the best use of my time to double-check it carefully.
But for some of the complex internal flows where a bug could be both catastrophic and difficult to even discover for awhile, I still check it very carefully.
For a little one-off vibe coded demo thing like OP shared, I wouldn’t look at the code at all, I’d just have another agent check it and fix anything it finds. Very low stakes.
Obviously maybe it’s not composable like that exactly in real world but that’s the intent of agents checking agents
I once made a counter judge, and a loop to make corrections deemed true positives. The loop cost me a lot and still left the results to be desirable.
They argue the net is positive but clearly the “100x productivity multiplier” claims have been dashed on the shoals of reality for these groups.
This is anecdotal, but it’s across the board in my vicinity. I’m curious how common this is and if it’s just “the new normal” to adopt the nauseating Covid phrase.
These types of high-level tests are frustrating beyond belief to humans due to their lack of specificity, but with the agents, they don't get annoyed investigating possible regressions from non-specific signals.
They also aren't as painful to maintain as one would think, because a regression flagging test can be traced by the agent and represented as the business rule that was violated. I've found recent models to be really excellent at discerning a true regression from an outdated test assertion, especially if they are able to trace the failing test back to the PR and work ticket that built it.