They're representative of scenarios which your application can enter.
So if the tests were mocked and a bug went live he'd still notice, after all it means your software behaved incorrectly and now you gotta clean up the pieces.
This is becoming cyclical, did you forget what this comment chain went about?
The discussion went from tests being written by ai, to nobody actually reviewing the tests, to the claim that given those circumstances, you wouldn't notice that the tests may not tests anything anymore because of mocks.
My statement was merely pointing out that your previous comment was groundless because they still would've found out about those bugs when they went live.
>My statement was merely pointing out that your previous comment was groundless because they still would've found out about those bugs when they went live.
That's a big issue in my team. We cannot really review tests manually, we already have too much just reviewing the code. And even then, sometimes the 'is this change necessary' question is forgotten or ignored (happened to me 20 minutes ago) because I an tired of fighting my junior+AI. I try to make AI refactor the tests every weeks ande that's it.
> Are people reviewing all the tests that have been created automatically?
Absolutely not! Some people ask a code assistant to write only integration/end-to-end tests and commit them. Unittests is only to help LLM generate correct code.
When I was a child, my dad used to bring me to school by car. During the ride, I played "Star Trek" and we always had a technical issue like a phase variance in an induction coil. Usually it ended such that the warp core had to be ejected...
Sir Patrick Stewart inspired me since my childhood. Thank you captain!
I am not against some kind of "public review" and I really like arxiv.org. But I do not see it as a replacement for a peer review. It may start after a peer review when the paper is published, which IMHO should almost always be in an Open Access way.
For AI, the borders seem to have blurred a bit between academic scientists (e.g. at universities) and external scientists at companies or even private people). The problem with the latter is that it is much harder to enforce good scientific practice. Think only about the time it takes to write the state of the art of an ordinary conference paper.
I am also a bit drawn between giving everyone the chance to contribute to research and ensuring good scientific practice. Just writing down your latest ideas and successes is not the same as writing a scientific paper that shows the research in the context of past research and needs, for instance, to be much more mathematically rigorous.
You can write the above and I can respond. The quality of each response is visible to everyone. Your ideas and mine are actually getting reviewed here, now, at least to some degree. Or it can be seen that they are not getting reviewed or indeed there's a non-zero chance that it can be seen that one or both of us is a muppet. Anyone else can chime in and be ignored, or celebrated or anything else.
This is nothing like academic journal peer review, where you can't see the failed submissions for the paper and why. You have no clue if the reviewers were interested in the topic, diligent, drunk or playing politics "support papers from these institutions because they're the good guys, undermine those because they are or aren't from Europe." You have no idea if the paper has since failed to replicate on multiple occasions. You have no idea if you are the first person to actually read the paper and when you have you thoughts, no matter how insightful, well articulated and supported by evidence, those thoughts do not matter to the publication process of that paper, which has been peer reviewed.
Public review by the knowledgeable who care is a very different thing to so called "peer review."
I am sorry for that. Fortunately, this does not resemble my experience (electrical engineering/digital signal processing).
Usually I got quite critical comments (positive and/or negative). Yes, sometimes a reviewer does not write even a single sentence before giving an average score to complete the review process. But this has not been the regular case.
And as a reviewer for a conference paper of 4 to 6 pages, I usually assigned 1 to 3 hours to read it (journal papers: 1 to 2 days) and to give comments.
Curiously, the one paper which was actually reviewed was in an IEEE journal and about filter design.
Most of the rest of my papers were in completely different disciplines.
It was an awesome paper -- in my mind, groundbreaking -- but I'm not convinced anyone beyond the reviewers ever read it. I see about a dozen citations which popped up years later, clicked through a few, and they were inane.
Problem is it was work in a very, very classical field, alongside Butterworth, Chebyshev, and similar, and while quite fundamental, and with many applications, there is no contemporary research there.
My most popular papers were mostly rather.... random.
This is a very simplistic view of a PhD and basically a prejudice.
During conducting a PhD, you learn a lot about organizing yourself, about how to work together with others in a professional context, about teaching and guiding others, about presenting you and your results orally and in a written way, about using certain tools (whatever applies in your field) and so on.
Some people like to view it the way that a PhD makes you a expert in one field and rendering yourself useless for any other task. But this is in general far from reality. As a PhD (at least where I live in Germany and in the field of engineering) you are indeed expected to have a broad view such that you are able to know where you are located with your PhD topic and such that you are indeed not a narrow expert.
I know that many American lectures are given by "TAs" that are PhD students, but do most American PhD students (or in Germany in your case) teach and guide others? That is certainly not the case for my European country: even if one wanted to teach as a PhD student for the experience on one's CV, the answer is usually that the department's budget wouldn't allow creating another teaching position for you.
Here, you may give seminars. These are often about solving some tasks (e.g., "compute the Fourier transform of a triangle"). Sometimes it is just consultation where students can ask stuff about the lecture. You may als be asked to conduct lab experiments with students.
Sometimes your only teaching consists of supervising student research projects, Bachelor's theses or Master's theses.
The lectures are usually given by the professor (head of the research group). Sometimes a PhD gives a lecture when the professor is away. But yes, it depends on your employment contract. If your contract involves a lot of teaching you might even give a whole lecture - though this is rarely the case for employees without PhD.
Yes, so this could be the case for countries where PhDs are employees of the university. However, in other countries PhDs might be entirely externally funded and not department staff, so they would not do any teaching or guiding during the PhD (or possibly even during their postdocs).
The idea is really nice. And I think projects like this could help elderly or mentally less gifted people.
Unfortunately, things break inside the programs. Usually the folder structure is still exposed as-is and the programs (except things like calculators or synthesizers) do not look like things from the physical world.
I have to do with some elderly people who do not have a mental model about file systems, program menus, tabs, and other things. They learn by heart where to click. And then they forget it when they do not use it on a regular basis. But they cannot regain this knowledge on their own since the UI has no inherent logic for them.
"Ukranians were murdering Russian people in Donbass"
Russia settled Russians in Ukraine to control/destroy it for decades (like in the Baltics, Georgia and in many different places, the usual Russian tactic). Then Russia instigated a civil war in Ukraine and finally invaded Ukraine in 2014, so there were fights in Donbass back then with deaths (Russia also shot down a Malaysian plane in 2014 from Donbass).
"Your weapons are murdering Russian civilians right now, but you don't care, why?"
Because those Russian civilians voted and supported a dictator who wanted and wants to invade Europe and re-enslave the population. And Russians loved it, they loved it plundering and murdering and torturing people in Europe before and they will again.
Russia encouraged Serbs to start WW1 because Russians wanted to invade Europe through their puppets on the Balkans, later invaded Europe in 1939 in a joint military operation with the Nazis/Germans and will do so again whenever Russians see the chance to do so.
I would prefer no war but a big wall, mile deep minefields and drone/ballistic/SDI defenses instead to keep Russians out and stop them from invading Europe again, but I guess Russia needs to first lose this war to make this a reality.
One goal is probably to show average Russians that the war is not just something which happens somewhere else in the world - a side-note on the news, no need to bother about.
The question why people who do not agree with the government should also pay the price for a war started by their government/country is not specific to this war.
So you want to show it to Russians but not Americans? Why? USA is the nation responsible for most destruction post WW2 around the world, Russia is not even close.
I suspect there are a lot of German companies that have thousands of documents that describe their software/product. Adding or changing a feature means you have to ask 20 people whether there might something that can break some edge case behavior for which no (automatic) test exists. In this case, it would be nice to have a virtual employee who knows the content of all documents.
I even experienced the opposite case: Some feature was first rejected since everyone agreed that it would break some behavior. After talking to several people again, I discovered that the use case which required this behavior did not exist anymore and had been officially phased out years before. Maybe, some RAG LLM could have told me, based on company documents, that there is some edge case that can be removed making the way free for the new feature.
Are people reviewing all the tests that have been created automatically?
What about existing tests? How do we make sure that AI does not fake them (by silent changes or by faking the test output)?
edit: corrected typo
reply