• FizzyOrange@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why? That is a great use for AI. I’m guessing you are imagining that people are just blindly asking for unit tests and not even reading the results? Obviously don’t do that.

    • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Of course that’s what they’re doing. That’s the whole point. Generate a bunch of plausible-looking BS and move on.

      Writing one UT (actually writing, not pressing tab) gives you ideas for other tests.

      And unit tests are not some boring chore. When doing TDD, they help inform and guide the design. If the LLM is doing that thinking for you, too, you’re just flying blind. “Yeah, that looks about right.”

      Can’t wait for this shit to show up in medical devices.

      • Honytawk@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That is like claiming people are directly copying from university books and implementing whatever they get without checking.

        Of course there are nitwits like that, but they are few and far in between.

        Anyone seriously using LLM prompts double checks their work.

        • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I’ve caught “professionals” pasting code from from forums and StackOverflow. Of course people are just blindly using LLMs the same way. Incredibly naive to think people aren’t already and won’t do so more in the future.

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Damn there are so many AI critics who have clearly not seriously tried it. It’s like the smartphone naysayers of 2007 but much much worse.