1> Relying on code reviews has concerns, IMO. For example, how many engineers actually review the code in their dependencies? (But, I guess it wouldn't take that much to develop an adversarial "code review" AI?)
2> Yes, agreed, that would work. Provided the original solution had viable tests, the 2nd (or additional) rounds would have something to keep the changes grounded. In fact, perhaps the existing tests are enough? Making the next AI version of the solution truly "agile"?
3> So, at my age (yes, getting older) I'm led to a single, tongue-in-cheek / greedy question: How to invest in these AI-trained data sets?
1> Relying on code reviews has concerns, IMO. For example, how many engineers actually review the code in their dependencies? (But, I guess it wouldn't take that much to develop an adversarial "code review" AI?)
2> Yes, agreed, that would work. Provided the original solution had viable tests, the 2nd (or additional) rounds would have something to keep the changes grounded. In fact, perhaps the existing tests are enough? Making the next AI version of the solution truly "agile"?
3> So, at my age (yes, getting older) I'm led to a single, tongue-in-cheek / greedy question: How to invest in these AI-trained data sets?