They don't, the software engineer does that. It is different since LLMs can't test the system like a human can.
Once the system can both test and update the spec etc to fix errors in the spec and build the program and ensure the result is satisfactory, we have AGI. If you argue an AGI could do it, then yeah it could as it can replace humans at everything, the argument was for an AI that isn't yet AGI.
The world runs on fuzzy underspecified processes. On excel sheets and post-it notes. Much of the world's software needs are not sophisticated and don't require extensive testing. It's OK if a human employee is in the loop and has to intervenes sometimes when an AI-built system malfunctions. Businesses of all sizes have procedures where problems get escalated to more senior people with more decision-making power. The world is already resilient against mistakes made by tired/inattentive/unintelligent people, and mistakes made by dumb AI systems will blend right in.
> The world runs on fuzzy underspecified processes. On excel sheets and post-it notes.
Excel sheets are not fuzzy and underspecified.
> It's OK if a human employee is in the loop and has to intervenes sometimes
I've never worked on software where this was OK. In many cases it would have been disastrous. Most of the time a human employee could not fix the problem without understanding the software.
All software that interops with people, other businesses, APIs, deals with the physical world in any way, or handles money has cases that require human intervention. It's 99.9% of software if not more. Security updates. Hardware failures. Unusual sensor inputs. A sudden influx of malformed data. There is no such thing as an entirely autonomous system.
But we're not anywhere close to maximally automated. Today (many? most?) office workers do manual data entry and processing work that requires very little thinking. Even automating just 30% of their daily work is a huge win.
They don't, the software engineer does that. It is different since LLMs can't test the system like a human can.
Once the system can both test and update the spec etc to fix errors in the spec and build the program and ensure the result is satisfactory, we have AGI. If you argue an AGI could do it, then yeah it could as it can replace humans at everything, the argument was for an AI that isn't yet AGI.
The world runs on fuzzy underspecified processes. On excel sheets and post-it notes. Much of the world's software needs are not sophisticated and don't require extensive testing. It's OK if a human employee is in the loop and has to intervenes sometimes when an AI-built system malfunctions. Businesses of all sizes have procedures where problems get escalated to more senior people with more decision-making power. The world is already resilient against mistakes made by tired/inattentive/unintelligent people, and mistakes made by dumb AI systems will blend right in.
> The world runs on fuzzy underspecified processes. On excel sheets and post-it notes.
Excel sheets are not fuzzy and underspecified.
> It's OK if a human employee is in the loop and has to intervenes sometimes
I've never worked on software where this was OK. In many cases it would have been disastrous. Most of the time a human employee could not fix the problem without understanding the software.
All software that interops with people, other businesses, APIs, deals with the physical world in any way, or handles money has cases that require human intervention. It's 99.9% of software if not more. Security updates. Hardware failures. Unusual sensor inputs. A sudden influx of malformed data. There is no such thing as an entirely autonomous system.
But we're not anywhere close to maximally automated. Today (many? most?) office workers do manual data entry and processing work that requires very little thinking. Even automating just 30% of their daily work is a huge win.