On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:08:06PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 15:58 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hrm, why? Pretend that the bot is a human sitting somewhere sending
mails out, how does it change anything?
If i know a bot might do something wrong, i Fix it and make sure it
will never do it again. For humans i just can't do that, can I ? :)
so this is the difference and why we all have jobs ..
It's tricky because there's no one true value here. Humans are
constantly wrong about whether a patch is a fix or not, so how can I
train my bot to be 100% right?
> > The solution here is to beef up your testing infrastructure
> > rather
> > than
>
> So please let me opt-in until I beef up my testing infra.
Already did :)
No you didn't :), I received more than 5 AUTOSEL emails only today and
yesterday.
Appologies, this is just a result of how my process goes - patch
selection happened a few days ago (which is when blacklists are
applied), it's been running through my tests since, and mails get sent
out only after tests.
Please don't opt mlx5 out just yet ;-), i need to do some more research
and make up my mind..
Alrighty. Keep in mind you can always reply with just a "no" to AUTOSEL
mails, you don't have to explain why you don't want it included to keep
it easy.
> > taking less patches; we still want to have *all* the fixes,
> > right?
> >
>
> if you can be sure 100% it is the right thing to do, then yes,
> please
> don't hesitate to take that patch, even without asking anyone !!
>
> Again, Humans are allowed to make mistakes.. AI is not.
Again, why?
Because AI is not there yet.. and this is a very big philosophical
question.
Let me simplify: there is a bug in the AI, where it can choose a wrong
patch, let's fix it.
But we don't know if it's wrong or not, so how can we teach it to be
100% right?
I keep retraining the NN based on previous results which improves it's
accuracy, but it'll never be 100%.
The NN claims we're at ~95% with regards to past results.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
