alt Hacker NewsI have very serious doubts, the errors are not in the same category, transformers are fundamentally limited.
Eyes free is the wrong focus, it will do more short term damage to society, while being impossible at scale. But I understand there are a bunch of valley types who want to completely obviate humans for whatever reason, it's an alternate reality they live in.
Here's the thing, society will revolt against these people, they already gave the first warning shots. This HN submission is a story about another person leaving the products of a company engaging in eyes free practices. You wouldn't want your lawyers and doctors doing that, why software developers then?
> human approval is no longer considered viable by a majority
Where do you see data that the majority believe this? From what I can see it is a shrinking minority as we move beyond peak hype.
Not a valley person here (NYC rules!)
Your first argument, transported back to the 70s, would make it hard for people to start the transition to using compilers or interpreters instead of assembly language. I see no fundamental difference in coding with advanced LLM vs using a compiler, and the situation will improve further in short order. Bugs can exist in any scenario and we have ways to find them. Much fewer bugs per project than if everything was done by humans in <insert-language-of-your-choice>.
> > human approval is no longer considered viable by a majority
> Where do you see data that the majority believe this? From what I can see it is a shrinking minority as we move beyond peak hype.
All coding harnesses (claude, codex, even copilot...) started supporting automated approval at some points this year. Some of them by now use it as a default option (claude code); others (codex) get strong nudging (and free inference cost for the approval option) to select that option.