6 ms·
Every post that claimed using ChatGPT to achieve non-trivial tasks turned out to have non-trivial human intervention. > (from the original article) In fact, I
by rapiz 3y ago
Every post that claimed using ChatGPT to achieve non-trivial tasks turned out to have non-trivial human intervention.
> (from the original article) In fact, I found it better to let ChatGPT generate a toy-ish version of the code first, then let it add things to it step-by-step. This resulted in much better output than, say, asking ChatGPT to generate production-quality code with all features in the first go. This also gave me a way to break down my requirements and feed them one at a time - as I was also acting as a code-reviewer for the generated output, and so this method was also easier for me to work with.
It takes a human who really knows the area to instruct ChatGPT and review the output, point out silly mistakes in the generated non-sense, and start next iteration. This kind of curated posts always cut off the most part of the conversations and the failed attempts, and then concatenate successful attempts with outputs of quality. Sure, it will be helpful as a super-IntelliSense. But not as helpful as the post suggested.
I've tried to do something like in the post, but I was quickly bored with waiting output, reviewing, all the iterations. One important aspect about programming is that reading code may not be easier than writing code. And in my case, it's more painful.
- MattRix 3y agoOk but this is extremely new tech, all of that stuff will get better over time, and the AI will require less and less intervention.
- rapiz 3y agoI don't think so. Ultimately there's not enough information in prompts to produce "correct" code. And any attempt to deliver more information will result in a worse programming language, or as it is now, more iterations.
- janeway 3y agoSeems like if it can eventually test that the output meets the criteria then it will excel.
- RussianCow 3y agoBut when the code doesn't meet the requirements, the AI needs to know what's incorrect and what changes it needs to make, and that still requires a human. Unless you just put it into a loop and hope that it produces a working result eventually.
- throwaway50606 3y agoSo what if you don't "just put it into a loop and hope" but actually make a complex AI agent with static code analysis capabilities, a graph DB, a work memory etc? I'm doing just that and it works surprisingly well. Currently it's as good as people with 2-3 years of experience. Do you really believe it's not going to improve? Now I'm making a virtual webcam so it has a face and you can talk to it on a Zoom meeting...
- rapiz 3y agoDo you have a presentable demo? LLM augmented by static code analysis sounds very interesting
- throwaway50606 3y agoI don't have GPT-4 API access yet... Using my ChatGPT Plus subscription so far. Will make a release once I get the API.
- CamperBob2 3y agoEnglish is a programming language now. That is what is being demonstrated here. Code is still being written; it just looks more like instructions given to a human programmer. Eventually, human languages will be the only high-level programming languages. Everything else will be thought of the way we currently think of assembly code: a tool of last resort, used only in unusual circumstances when nothing else will do. And it looks like "Eventually" means "In a year or two."
- UncleMeat 3y agoEnglish is a programming language once you stop looking at or storing the output of the LLM. Like a binary. I'm not seeing anybody store their prompts in a source repo and hooking it directly up to their build pipeline.
- verdverm 3y agoWe'll be adding flakey code gen to our flakey tests, because someone will do this
- throwuwu 3y agoWhat programming language do your stakeholders use to communicate their ideas during planning meetings? Unfortunately, mine can only speak English…
- pojzon 3y agoThe issue in this is that they speak english, think english, want X in english. But in reality need Y. ChatGPT will not help with that.
- throwuwu 3y agoThe point is that the roles are reversed not that you give ChatGPT to the stakeholders. ChatGPT is a programmer you hire for $30/month and you act as its manager or tech lead. This is pointless to argue though since it’s apparent there are people for which this just doesn’t fit into their workflow for whatever reason. It’s like arguing over whether to use an IDE.
- MattRix 3y agoMany high quality human programmers could go off and make a very good program from a simple description/prompt. I see no reason an LLM couldn’t do the same. On top of that, there’s no reason an AI couldn’t ask additional questions to clarify certain details, just like a human would. Also as this tech gets faster, the iteration process will get more rapid too, where a human can give small bits of feedback to modify the “finished product” and get the results in seconds.
- seunosewa 3y agoChatGPT is a junior developer whose knowledge is broad but shallow.
- killthebuddha 3y agoIMO this leaves out some salient details. For example, I'd say ChatGPT is a very, very good junior developer. The kind of junior developer that loves computer science, has been screwing around with miscellaneous algorithms and data structures its whole life, has a near-perfect memory, and is awake 24/7/365, but has never had to architect a data-intensive system, write future-proof code, or write code for other developers. Of course, these last three things are a big deal, but the rest of the list makes for a ridiculously useful teammate.
- verdverm 3y agoGetting a bit heavy on the anthropomorphizing, it's an LLM which has certain capabilities. For example, I would not expect the same junior engineer to have such variance, given the same inputs.
- killthebuddha 3y agoI completely agree. IMO anthropomorphisms of LLMs leave out extremely important details.
- therein 3y ago> and is awake 24/7/365 The whole thing is a really accurate expansion on the analogy. It even extends further to explain how it tends to forget certain requirements it was just told and tends to hallucinate at times.
- addandsubtract 3y agoIt also has a very broad knowledge of programming languages and frameworks. It's able to onboard you with ease and answer most of qour questions. The trick is to recognize when it's confidently incorrect and hallucinating API calls.
- robinsord 3y ago[dead]
- visarga 3y ago> Every post that claimed using ChatGPT to achieve non trivial tasks turned out to have non trivial human intervention. That means full autonomy reached in 0% of applications. How do we go from 0 to 1? By the way, until we remove the human from the loop the iteration speed is still human speed, and number of AI agents <= number of human assistants. The productivity boost by current level AI is just 15%, as reported in some papers, percentage of code written by Copilot is about 50% it just helps writing out the easy parts and not much for debugging, designing, releasing, etc which take the bulk of the time, so it's probably back to 15% boost.