← Back to context

Comment by salawat

3 days ago

Who wrote the tests?

And how does the answer to your question bear on the claim I’m making?

  • If you're trying to automate all coding activity, writing tests is coding activity. Arguably the greater fraction of effort between implementation, and verifying said implementation. If the only thing making your problem space tractable for the automation to be able to replace the lesser half of coding activity is an authored test suite you couldn't generate via your automation, then you really need to admit that.

    "Did you check?" is the most expensive question, and one of the most feared in my experience in tech circles. Spent quite a few years as a dedicated tester once I developed the knack for it. Everybody gangsta til it's time to prove the damn thing works.

    • > "Did you check?" is the most expensive question, and one of the most feared in my experience in tech circles.

      Here it’s a climb-down. Writing tests to validate translation is orders of magnitude less work (and less likely to fail or be too dull to do properly) than the alternative available prior to 2025.

      The fact that they wrote tests and clearly established operational control is not some kinda gotcha! It’s how they managed to get this piece of technology to allow them to do the IMPOSSIBLE.

      I am just really struggling to understand someone who reads that paper and thinks “yup, everything is still the same and we don’t need to re-evaluate any ideas” Like, if you want to say that they still need engineering discipline in order to do ISA transitions at scale then…ok? That’s true? But Gemini meant that this formerly impossible thing was now not only within reach but done.