[RyEgswuCsn]

If you need AI to help you program an algorithm, then you shouldn't be using it because you can't tell if AI's solution is correct.

If you can tell if a solution is correct or not --- well, then you don't need to have AI write it for you.

I think AI programming can only work when the industry begin to treat "almost working" systems backed by human customer service as acceptable.

[rewgs]

This. And at a certain point, a prompt might become so specific that you might as well just write the code yourself. After all, a prompt is instructions for a computer, as is code.

[sailingparrot]

> If you can tell if a solution is correct or not --- well, then you don't need to have AI write it for you.

Did you just solve P=NP?

Many things are trivial to verify, but hard/time consuming to code up.

You probably shouldn't rely on this to write critical software, no matter the amount of manual QA you throw at it afterwards, but there is an abundance of non-critical use cases where you can quickly check if a solution is good enough for what you care about.

[RyEgswuCsn]

What I meant to say is that most people can only verify an algorithm is correct if they already know the correct solution.

If they already know the answer then it’s probably more efficient if they write it themselves rather than having AI produce a potentially difficult to verify answer and try to verify it.

[zeroonetwothree]

Most problems in "P" are not "trivial".