this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23914 readers
315 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I expect that we'll see tooling and languages adapt overtime and we'll be developing code differently.

For example, programming languages might start shifting in the direction of contracts. You specify the signature for the function and the agents figures out how to meet the spec. You could also specify parameters like computational complexity and memory usage. It would be akin to genetic algorithm approach where the agent could converge on a solution over time.

If that’s the direction things will be moving in, then current skills could be akin to being able to write assembly by hand. Useful in some niche situations, but not necessary vast majority of the time.

The way code is structured will likely shift towards small composable components. As long as the code meets the spec, it doesn't necessarily matter what quality of the functions is internally. You can treat them as black boxes as long as they’re doing what’s expected. This is how we work with libraries right now. Nobody audits all the code in a library they include, you just look at the signatures and call the API level functions.

Incidentally, I’m noticing that functional style seems to work really well with LLMs. Having an assembly line of pure functions naturally breaks up a problem into small building blocks that you can reason about in isolation. It’s kind of like putting Lego blocks together. The advantage over approaches like microservies here is that you don’t have to deal with the complexity of orchestration and communication between the services.

[–] semioticbreakdown@hexbear.net 22 points 1 week ago (8 children)

But in all of these cases we trust that someone wrote the code - that someone actually put in the effort to make sure shit wasn't fucked. Library's are black boxes, but someone made that - someone made the compilation tools, someone wrote LLVM, someone wrote these things and understands on a more fundamental level how they work! At every level of abstraction, someone did due diligence to ensure that the processes that they wrote worked. And LLMs are trained on the fruits of our labor as programmers! No line of LLM code could exist if not for someone writing it. If programmers no longer produce anything really new, because they no longer understand how to, it would just be feeding back into itself, creating output based on LLM output. Utter simulacra that will just collapse because of its poisoned dataset. Just a level of abstraction completely divorced from the real labor that the information age was built on. It seems to me like the information layer around which technocratic societies have reconstructed themselves is dissolving on a fundamental level from these tools. So I just fail to see how using the lie machine is a good thing for programming, even with program verification and referential transparency. They can't even do math right. I've seen the future where programmers are reduced to writing training data for LLMs and being program verifiers and it is fucking grim, in my opinion.

[–] MizuTama@hexbear.net 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

At every level of abstraction, someone did due diligence to ensure that the processes that they wrote worked

We know very different programmers lol

[–] semioticbreakdown@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

git commit -m "Works on my machine!"

[–] MizuTama@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

It's like the entire reason containerization was such a big deal

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)