{"id":47109536,"user":"shevy-java","time":1771751224,"time_ago":"11 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Alchemy involved a lot of do-it-yourself though. With AI it is like someone else does all the work (well, almost all the work).","comments":[{"id":47109583,"user":"BoredPositron","time":1771751822,"time_ago":"11 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

It was mainly a jab at the protoscientific nature of it.","comments":[{"id":47109958,"user":"vntok","time":1771756901,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Reproducing experimental results across models and vendors is trivial and cheap nowadays.","comments":[{"id":47110037,"user":"BoredPositron","time":1771758050,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Not if anthropic goes further in obfuscating the output of claude code.","comments":[{"id":47110383,"user":"vntok","time":1771762352,"time_ago":"8 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Why would you test implementation details? Test what's delivered, not how it's delivered. The thinking portion, synthetized or not, is merely implementation.

The resulting artefact, that's what is worth testing.","comments":[{"id":47110953,"user":"hghbbjh","time":1771767924,"time_ago":"6 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> Why would you test implementation details

Because this has never been sufficient. From things like various hard to test cases to things like readability and long term maintenance. Reading and understanding the code is more efficient and necessary for any code worth keeping around.","comments":[],"comments_count":0,"level":4,"url":"item?id=47110953"}],"comments_count":1,"level":3,"url":"item?id=47110383"}],"comments_count":2,"level":2,"url":"item?id=47110037"}],"comments_count":3,"level":1,"url":"item?id=47109958"}],"comments_count":4,"level":0,"url":"item?id=47109583"}],"comments_count":5,"url":"item?id=47109536"}

Comment by shevy-java