• thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They did do management-- They modeled the whole company as individual “staff” communicating with each other: CEO-bot communicates a product direction to the CTO-bot who communicates technical requirements to the developer-bot who asks for a “beautiful user interface” (lol) from the “art designer” (lol).

    It’s all super rudimentary and goofy, but management was definitely part of the experiment.

    • igorlogius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood … but now I wonder which part of the “company” was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary.

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the “get out of jail free” card:

        In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing or other strategies.