There’s a huge gulf between toys and critical infrastructure.

"didn't even look at it" is a giveaway of the OP being a liability on top of a boaster and the company who employs him deserves to go out in flames

Wonder if he tells his boss to "I pushed critical code to production without even taking a look at it" or is it just for show on HN

Indeed, I am just building apps people use, they are not "critical infrastructure" and the world won't end if there's a small bug, I don't vibe code self driving cars, defense systems or medical devices. A

If there is a bug, it will be fixed quickly anyway, so only a few users might ever see it, or see it only for a brief time.

Even when manually coding, projects still have issues and bugs, I don't think much changes in that aspect now, if anything, there are fewer bugs now in most high quality apps than before, due to AI catching more issues. See all the vulnerabilities found in old core code and libraries nowadays, that humans didn't find.

LLMs write better code than humans with fewer bugs. They also do it much much faster so you can spend all the remaining time testing. Tests are written faster too so not only you have more time for testing but also you can use it better.

>>Sure if your building toys, that's fine, otherwise, why take the risk in being liable for not looking at what the code does and then believing it is high quality?

>>Don't you see the contraction you just did there?

I wouldn't trust anyone who refuse to use LLMs for programming. Their code is worse, they test it less and it takes longer to write. For me "no LLMs" attitude is a sign of incompetence. Good for hobbyist trying to keep their brain active but that's about it.

That is even more so for critical infrastructure. Just look at the mess human coding is when it comes to security. LLMs are fixing it at the pace we couldn't even imagine a year or so ago.

> LLMs write better code than humans with fewer bugs. They also do it much much faster so you can spend all the remaining time testing.

So does that mean you should never look at its code?

If a fault in the software occurs even after testing and there was an investigation, will you admit in the postmortem report that you did not look at the code at all and blame the agent for the error?

> I wouldn't trust anyone who refuse to use LLMs for programming.

Did I say I refuse to use LLMs for programming? I am telling you to check the agent's work.

I would not trust anyone who DOES NOT check the changes of an agent's code when using them for programming in highly regulated industries or in critical systems. For most companies in the Fortune 500, it is irresponsible to not check.

> That is even more so for critical infrastructure. Just look at the mess human coding is when it comes to security. LLMs are fixing it at the pace we couldn't even imagine a year or so ago.

No-one argued against that and it does not mean that you do not check with the agent at all even if the agent believes that they "fixed it".