this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
1034 points (98.4% liked)

Fuck AI

7221 readers
1597 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ethanol@pawb.social 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's a great post, that well displays the issues with AI tests! For my own personal curiosity I looked at the testing rewrite of rsync, specifically the chgrp_test because it was the smallest test I quickly found. If you look at the original shell script, all it does is call chgrp and then fail if it doesn't work. In the Python rewrite on the other hand the LLM calls chown to change the group and only if that fails, it tests chgrp. So if for some reason chown works but chgrp would fail, the original shell script would easily catch that (cause why do you test for chown anyways) while the Python rewrite doesn't even call chgrp in case chown works.

Even though, this might not be as much of a problem in practice, I think it illustrates that the AI tends to write tests where it already anticipates and tries to fix potential issues, which absolutely goes against the use of tests!

[–] sqw@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 23 hours ago

dont get tricked into thinking an LLM can encode "anticipation of a potential issue"

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago

I think it illustrates that the AI tends to write tests where it already anticipates and tries to fix potential issues, which absolutely goes against the use of tests!

LLMs just generate "statistically probable" text, all it's doing is generating text that looks like how you'd write tests, they may or may not actually test anything.