Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
4/30/2025, 1:23:31 AM
X
In reply to:
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon I did. He’s claiming AI will be better than most good SWEs at the end-to-end software dev lifecycle, and will generate a majority of code, but he’s allowing for a jagged frontier otherwise he would have used the word “all” instead of “most”.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon watch the video that i quote, esp part about finding issues and improving code.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon Fair, but I don't think the claim is that all AI generated code will be better than top SWEs - there may still be holes and a somewhat jagged frontier - but that for a majority of tasks AI generated code will be better.

This seems reasonable given the trajectory of progress.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon he specifically claimed they would be better at debugging than top engineers in 12-18 months in the post.

i really don’t see that happening that fast.
MindMirror
@TheMysteryDrop
·
257d
@GaryMarcus @samuelaxon How good do you think the average SWE is at this benchmark? AI doesn't need to hit 100% to soak up >50%.

Note that Zuck isn't claiming 100% of software will be AI generated - just the majority - and that there will be a role for top SWEs to cover the holes for the time being.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
257d
@TheMysteryDrop @samuelaxon driverless cars were (I imagine) greater than 80% correct a decade ago; the last bit is always hard.

The statement is part of a discussion on the capabilities of AI in software development, specifically comparing AI's potential to outperform average software engineers (SWEs). The conversation involves evaluating AI's progress and its implications for the software industry.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is part of a technical discussion about AI's capabilities. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The discussion promotes understanding of AI's role in software development, though it could be more detailed in explaining the implications. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The conversation is constructive, focusing on the potential and limitations of AI without personal attacks. [+1]