Devin dissected. Disinformation debunked. Direction declared!
It's now been one month since Cognition announced Devin, which we remain excited about. However, it's time to go over that initial announcement tweet, because we need to get some things clear.
We predict that Autonomous DevTools will have a historic impact on software (good or bad!) This period is the beginning of their transition from research prototypes to eventual production use.
If you tuned into this "dissection" hoping to see real architecture and code deep dives, don't worry - it's coming next. This site exists to promote the development of high quality Open Source tools, and we intend to hold every player to the same standards we're holding Cognition to here.
The announcement
Point-by-point
Today we're excited to introduce Devin,
Good so far.
the first AI software engineer.
False. We'll come back to that.
The benchmark
Devin is the new state-of-the-art on the SWE-Bench coding benchmark,
True-ish. Their longer blog post explains that only a 25% sample of the benchmark was run. It hasn't been independently verified, which is probably why SWE-bench doesn't list it. Admittedly, the full benchmark can get expensive to run, which is why there is now an official subset called SWE-bench-lite.
However we tend to believe that the performance was roughly as reported because Cognition was nice enough to provide the results from the runs. Another reason it's plausible is that two Open Source agents using different architectures have since met or exceeded that score, SWE-agent (Princeton) and reportedly AutoCodeRover (NUS), see our leaderboards page for updates.
Job interviews
and it has successfully passed practical engineering interviews from leading AI companies,
Misleading even if true. Also unimpressive as it's a known capability of GPT-4.
You can see this "old trick" in the paper Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 from March 2023 by Microsoft Research. Here's Figure 1.5:
When we design a test for humans, such as an exam or interview, we build in assumptions about the common abilities and deficiencies intrinsic to humans. For instance, to whatever extent a bar exam can assess that a human can practice law, it has very little bearing on whether a machine can, Language Model or otherwise.
Since we're being careful with terms today, these were not job interviews, they were mock interviews. You can only pass a job interview if you are being interviewed for a job, meaning the company believes you might be otherwise qualified.
The Upwork job
and has even completed real jobs on Upwork.
Completely false, as we can easily see by simply reading the Upwork task description in the demo video, which says, "Your deliverable will be detailed instructions on how to do it in an EC2 instance in AWS." Internet of Bugs provides an excellent analysis showing that not only is the task incomplete, but the impressive debugging capabilities we saw in the video were the result of the agent adding its own bugs while doing unnecessary work because it ignored the instructions in the README. Sometimes they're too much like us!
See the last section for an update on this issue.
The product itself
Devin is an autonomous agent that solves engineering tasks through the use of its own shell, code editor, and web browser.
True!. In our view, this is the principal achievement. Although there were prior efforts, (GPT-Engineer, Aider, Smol-Developer, etc...), this really brought it into focus - the smooth combination of these elements into a UX that anyone can look at and "get it". Once something like this is released and proven, tons of people will want one. We will buy them and we will build them.
More on SWE-bench
When evaluated on the SWE-Bench benchmark, which asks an AI to resolve GitHub issues found in real-world open-source projects, Devin correctly resolves 13.86% of the issues unassisted, far exceeding the previous state-of-the-art model performance of 1.96% unassisted and 4.80% assisted.
As covered above, this is plausible. Media outlets have widely misreported this as being able to solve "14% of bugs on GitHub" and similar, which is a wildly different claim that Cognition never made. SWE-bench is limited in the types of issues it samples, containing only widely-used Python libraries covered by tests.
It would be straightforward (if time-consuming) to gather alternate test cases for other languages, creating things like SWE-bench-Java. Beware of the "Python bias" still prevalent across many AI training sets and coding benchmarks.
Check out what Devin can do in the thread below.
It was a cool thread! But where were we?
What is a Software Engineer?
There is currently no such thing as an "AI Software Engineer."
Software Engineer was a term introduced by Margaret Hamilton for the Apollo Moon landing project in order to secure professional respect for her colleagues and to emphasize the disciplined practices they were developing. By consensus, the term's use in most of the industry remains somewhat aspirational, but with the world now running on software we have good reason to use it carefully.
For discussion's sake, let's consider some basic necessary, though not sufficient conditions. We might all agree that a Software Engineer:
- Is a professional, having an obligation to uphold a standard of care
- Therefore, has legal and moral agency typically associated with personhood
- Is capable not only of solving small predefined tasks in a codebase, but also
- Creating and maintaining a codebase of significant size over a period of time
- Partnering to define the requirements to be done
Without the supervision of a human programmer, every autonomous coding tool to date would fail these minimal prerequisites. That's before any consideration of the actual engineering discipline as currently understood, see Dave Farley's recent book Modern Software Engineering for a nice formulation.
Update: Cognition clarifies conceding to critics?
We promised that if Cognition responded to these points, we would include their remarks, and they have!
Their April 17th thread announced that the closed beta was rolling out to more of the waitlist, and they included this:
We recently got questions about one of Devin’s Upwork runs, where Devin’s output wasn’t what the request asked for. It did the task directly instead of giving directions as requested (which to be clear is on us, sorry for the oversight).
Still, Devin is often inefficient and makes mistakes, some that it fixes and others that cause it to get stuck.
Part of the reason we’re glad to expand access is so more people can form their own opinions about Devin’s strengths and shortcomings.
We believe that skepticism is good and we all need to vet new technologies critically, so keep it coming!
This appears to be a tacit acknowledgement of multiple points in the Internet of Bugs video. It also emphasizes the importance of scrutiny, suggesting an ongoing dialog. While their overall narrative is unchanged, this is a stand up move!
This encourages the conversation about how Autonomous DevTools will integrate into an overall healthy process.
We can fix this
My advice to everyone building or selling in this space is just take a deep breath and figure out how you can give people exactly what you write on the tin.
What's done is done. Even industry leaders have gotten caught up in the frenzy and claimed some pretty outlandish things, leading to a stream of embarrassing headlines. We need to restore trust.
Building software that people can trust is hard. If you want to learn how, there's help. For instance, next month I'm honored to speak at Craft Conf 2024 in Budapest, with the talk "Code Mending in the AI Age". Just a glance through Craft's featured speaker list shows people who have put out treasure troves on improving software. Here's a quick playlist if you'd like to browse!
With patience the most tangled cord may be undone.
Want to help out? See where you fit in!
