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

LLMs are also heavily biased after chatbot tuning leads to mode-collapse. That's why you see the same verbal tics coming out of them, like the em-dashes or the 'twist ending' in the more recent 4os. And if LLMs really were unbiased, you'd expect better scaling when you tried to bruteforce code correctness. Training a 'test LLM' will just wind up inheriting a lot of the shared blindspots. They aren't independent of the implementation at all (just like humans are not independent, even when they didn't write the original, and didn't see it either; and this is why you can't simply throw _n_ programmers at a piece of code and be certain you got all the bugs, and why fuzzers will continue to rampage through code).


The code correctness part is very true.

I don't mind LLMs as part of a journey on code, but it shouldn't be the end product.

I see something submitted by a colleague that doesn't fit the problem we have + tech well, go and ask an LLM and it outputs very similar code.

It's clear at that point that they submitted heavily LLMs produced code without giving it the work it needed.




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

Search: