I’m calling it now, the adoption of AI agents into software development will be one of the most costly mistakes in the field’s history. Agents cannot program, and it’s taking longer and longer to realize that they can’t. They are a highly sophisticated statistical model designed to mimic the distribution of programming. The output is broken, but in a way that’s getting harder and harder to detect. Which is exactly what you’d expect from an increasingly accurate statistical model.
Not really.
A machine learning model is a computer program. It is fundamentally a math equation, which we understand completely.
A living brain is not fundamentally a math equation, and is not purely a statistical model, at least not in any empirically demonstrable way. We don’t understand completely how it works, but we do know that it’s more complex than what you’re trying to imply.
The comparison is not valid. Machine learning models are not an equivalent to a biological brain.
Lol you couldn’t be more wrong about this. One of the most widely commented things about DNNs is that we don’t really understand them completely. I don’t know how you would miss that if you knew anything about AI at all.
It is. A very complicated one, sure. Which part of the brain do you think is impossible to simulate with maths?
No one who actually works on digital neural networks thinks this. We may not be able to predict the behavior of a particular neural network with certainty (because there are a lot, like millions, of variables), but that does not mean that we don’t understand how they work.
simulation ≠ reality
Yes it is, if your simulation is sufficiently accurate. Let me rephrase. Which part of the brain do you think has behaviour that is required for intelligence/consciousness and that behaviour cannot be replicated with sufficient accuracy on a computer (of arbitrary capacity)?
Tbf, LLMs may be comparable in complexity to their specific brain.