Comment by jacquesm
7 hours ago
A lot of people in the open source world actually enjoy the act of programming. Not all of them will enjoy prompting to the same degree, but to keep pace with the bad guys you will have to either join or find something else to do. That's going to be a big loss.
It's funny, that's true although I personally can't relate — I enjoy having built something robust, but the act of building isn't something I love.
I can imagine prompting an LLM to build provably correct software. Aren't we already doing something similar already when we remind it to write unit tests and account for all edge cases?
Actually writing provably correct software from scratch sounds terribly tedious, which is why I've never explored it. But maybe an LLM could make that task more approachable.
I switch between the two modes. I love algorithmic stuff and I really don't like working on boilerplate and plumbing. So I use AI for the second and read every line and all the other stuff I roll by hand. The speedup isn't super like that but the amount of control is pretty good.
I just gave this prompt to duck.ai (5.6 Terra under the hood): "How would one go about writing a provably correct algorithm to count UTF-8 code points?"
It gave me something which looked pretty legit. Of course, the generated output very likely to be subtly wrong, but as starting input to a formal checked specification/proof process it seemed like a good start.
I wrote some UTF-8 based string handling software back in the day. It doesn't seem unreasonable to write up a set of requirements and edge cases and then have a formal mechanism prove correctness for common UTF-8 string manipulation operations.
[PEAK HN ON] Now if we could just write provably correct exception handling, we could solve one of the two PHP vulns from today. [PEAK HN OFF]
3 replies →