Reply to: Demand for AI "Surging"

[willendure]

I can conceptually understand how it can derive Unit Tests if it has access to code but if you move further up the V towards things like System and User Acceptance testing then it needs human input. In fact it would require humans who actually know what they want which can be a bit of a rarity in software development at times!

Tell me about - our product owner is a waste of space.

But maybe... maybe AI would have more of an idea than him? If I click a menu item in an application I would expect something to open that corresponds with what that menu item says it does. An example, I click File -> Open, I would expect some kind of file chooser dialog box to appear. An AI trained to test applications might also have similar "intuitive" expectations of how things should work. So a bit like when you put an application in front of a completely green user and ask them to try it out and let you know what isn't working or does not seem obvious, this kind of task does seem amenable to exploration by AI.

But I agree, AI becomes useful when you have a human-in-the-loop who is in charge, and AI doing the donkey work, but also being smart about it and not completely screwing it up.

[SussexSeagull]

I believe I just had my first glimpse of something that will change that with ChatGPT o1-preview. Its not perfect for sure, but a refinement of what has come before in terms of halucinating and general quality of its answers. The big change though, is that you can instruct it to do some task and it plans and sequences the steps and creates a real impression that it understands what you have asked it. I used it yesterday to write a "comprehensive" set of unit tests for some code, and it did just that. The way that it will continue to loop over a task until it is done is particularly useful. I have now seen an AI agent that seems to be capable of grasping some pretty complex requests and then doing the work. The "doing the work" bit is what is crucial to making it actually useful, because earlier LLM models operating in a more single step mode would tend to start something and then quit before completing it as they run out of tokens.

Writing those test myself would have taken me most of the day and also the thought of doing it myself by hand was really demotivating me. The promping to get it to spit out the code was not totally straightforward, and it took me 5 or 6 rounds of prompting to get there. It is currently handicapped by not being able to access the web, so I could not get it to consume some API docs for the test toolkit I was using. I expect this limitation will be lifted once it stops being just a preview. It took me an hour or so to get what I wanted out of it, but I can also see this going more smoothly with the right knowledgebase behind it.

This is the q-star thing that people were speculating about around the time Sam Altman was fired then reinstated. Big deal? But this is how far things have come since the LLM hype really kicked off around the start of 2023. Where will this be in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

I have been reading "The Master and His Emmisary" recently, a book about brain lateralization. I learned from this that the area of the brain most closely involved with language processing is also the same brain area that is most closely involed with manual dexterity - your right hand if you are right handed, or left if left. The author speculates that this is because they both are tools for manipulating the world. In the light of that, it is fascinating to see how LLMs are beginning to learn how to think through becoming good at language.

Automated testing is definitely an area where AI is going to flourish.

To me this feels more like the 90s than the dotcom era. When CPUs were advancing very quickly and there cwas intense competition in technology and large sums of money were being spent on the race.

I can conceptually understand how it can derive Unit Tests if it has access to code but if you move further up the V towards things like System and User Acceptance testing then it needs human input. In fact it would require humans who actually know what they want which can be a bit of a rarity in software development at times!

[willendure]

In the coming up thirty years I have been doing this all the tools and technologies that have come along have never really sped up the development process (although things like Automated Testing will done properly). I see nothing in AI yet that will change that.

I believe I just had my first glimpse of something that will change that with ChatGPT o1-preview. Its not perfect for sure, but a refinement of what has come before in terms of halucinating and general quality of its answers. The big change though, is that you can instruct it to do some task and it plans and sequences the steps and creates a real impression that it understands what you have asked it. I used it yesterday to write a "comprehensive" set of unit tests for some code, and it did just that. The way that it will continue to loop over a task until it is done is particularly useful. I have now seen an AI agent that seems to be capable of grasping some pretty complex requests and then doing the work. The "doing the work" bit is what is crucial to making it actually useful, because earlier LLM models operating in a more single step mode would tend to start something and then quit before completing it as they run out of tokens.

Writing those test myself would have taken me most of the day and also the thought of doing it myself by hand was really demotivating me. The promping to get it to spit out the code was not totally straightforward, and it took me 5 or 6 rounds of prompting to get there. It is currently handicapped by not being able to access the web, so I could not get it to consume some API docs for the test toolkit I was using. I expect this limitation will be lifted once it stops being just a preview. It took me an hour or so to get what I wanted out of it, but I can also see this going more smoothly with the right knowledgebase behind it.

This is the q-star thing that people were speculating about around the time Sam Altman was fired then reinstated. Big deal? But this is how far things have come since the LLM hype really kicked off around the start of 2023. Where will this be in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

I have been reading "The Master and His Emmisary" recently, a book about brain lateralization. I learned from this that the area of the brain most closely involved with language processing is also the same brain area that is most closely involed with manual dexterity - your right hand if you are right handed, or left if left. The author speculates that this is because they both are tools for manipulating the world. In the light of that, it is fascinating to see how LLMs are beginning to learn how to think through becoming good at language.

Automated testing is definitely an area where AI is going to flourish.

To me this feels more like the 90s than the dotcom era. When CPUs were advancing very quickly and their was intense competition in technology and large sums of money were being spent on the race.

[SussexSeagull]

The problem with AI is that the use cases don't exist yet to justify the money being spent on it - because the return really isn't there

https://www.wheresyoured.at/subprimeai/

I think you, and the article, sum it up well. It is an emerging technology that I believe is beginning to see some real world benefits in things like analysing scans but the amount of money being invested in something that is years, if ever, away from living under to it’s hype.

I had an argument with a guy on LinkedIn who assured me my career as a tester was over because of AI. Some AI ‘champions’ are borderline obsessed.

In the coming up thirty years I have been doing this all the tools and technologies that have come along have never really sped up the development process (although things like Automated Testing will done properly). I see nothing in AI yet that will change that.

[eek]

The problem with AI is that the use cases don't exist yet to justify the money being spent on it - because the return really isn't there

https://www.wheresyoured.at/subprimeai/

[SussexSeagull]

Why is this beginning to remind of the Dot Com boom 25 years ago?

It's obviously technology that will go on to be game changing but you need the world to come along with you.

[willendure]

Sure they are, there's loads of thick peeps just following the crowd, just look at people who backed up that women who promised to have a drug for cancer, or whatever it was, which was a) impossible b) a clear scam, yet she got tulip ton of backing from load of investors. Now of course you can dispute whether you'd call them investors in the first place as they have no idea what they are doing, but I wouldn't say the term still sticks.

Those are speculators and largely irrelevant. The real investors in AI are more like Microsoft or Google and so on - smart people with lots of money that will invest serious capital for years or decades to shift the needle on a new technology and reap the benefits. That is where the bulk of the money is coming from, or VC funds, banks and hedge funds but they of course have technical consultants also that understand the tech and have ideas about the "serious applications".

[dsc]

Those are not "investors".

Sure they are, there's loads of thick peeps just following the crowd, just look at people who backed up that women who promised to have a drug for cancer, or whatever it was, which was a) impossible b) a clear scam, yet she got tulip ton of backing from load of investors. Now of course you can dispute whether you'd call them investors in the first place as they have no idea what they are doing, but I wouldn't say the term still sticks.

[sadkingbilly]

Those are not "investors".

they're cleverly placed 'chatbots'??

[willendure]

I agree, but at the same time think all the hype is driven by the party tricks and the idea that soon chatbots will do most of the work. Lets be honest, investors are not clever enough to understand that AI is used in serious applications and what the future might bring, they probably have "clever robots do chu chu" on their minds.

Those are not "investors".

[dsc]

Look at something like Cerebras which sold its systems to G42 healthcare - they want AI to predict how drugs will behave and also to invent or help invent novel drugs - thats generative right there. So while chatbots are at the party trick end, similar generative AI technology is being used for serious applications. Plenty things being developed out there that are way too complex and involving hard science and engineering for most people to appreciate.

I agree, but at the same time think all the hype is driven by the party tricks and the idea that soon chatbots will do most of the work. Lets be honest, investors are not clever enough to understand that AI is used in serious applications and what the future might bring, they probably have "clever robots do chu chu" on their minds.

[jamesbrown]

Look at something like Cerebras which sold its systems to G42 healthcare - they want AI to predict how drugs will behave and also to invent or help invent novel drugs - thats generative right there. So while chatbots are at the party trick end, similar generative AI technology is being used for serious applications. Plenty things being developed out there that are way too complex and involving hard science and engineering for most people to appreciate.

I think I said the same thing above . I agree, the underlying models span many worthwhile applications, but chatbots capture the public consciousness because "oh, look at the clever robot!"

[jamesbrown]

Yes, but I see them as a forward evolution of the earlier models, not as 2 parallel branches.

Who said anything about parallel branches?

[willendure]

Look at something like Cerebras which sold its systems to G42 healthcare - they want AI to predict how drugs will behave and also to invent or help invent novel drugs - thats generative right there. So while chatbots are at the party trick end, similar generative AI technology is being used for serious applications. Plenty things being developed out there that are way too complex and involving hard science and engineering for most people to appreciate.

[willendure]

It's you that made this distinction above, "earlier AIs were more about prediction and pattern recognition"

Yes, but I see them as a forward evolution of the earlier models, not as 2 parallel branches.