Lembot_0003@lemmy.zip
on 21 Jun 08:01
nextcollapse
AI can now complete real-world coding tasks
That is the point where I stopped reading.
Yes, the author of this article should worry about AI, because AI is indeed quite effective in writing nonsense articles like this one. But AI is nowhere near replacing the real specialists. And it isn’t the question of quantity, it is a principal question of how modern “AIs” work. While those principles won’t change, AIs won’t be able to do any job that involves logic and stable repeated results.
SMillerNL@lemmy.world
on 21 Jun 08:32
nextcollapse
It can complete coding tasks. But that’s not the same as replacing a developer.
In the same way that cutting wood doesn’t make me a carpenter and soldering a wire doesn’t make me an electrician.
I wish the AI crowd understood that.
not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world
on 21 Jun 08:36
nextcollapse
It can complete coding tasks, but not well AND unsupervised. To get it to do something well I need to tell it what it did wrong over 4 or 5 iterations.
This is close to my experience for a lot of tasks, but unless I’m working in a tech stack I’m unfamiliar with, I find doing it myself leads to not just better results, but faster, too. Problem is it makes you have to work harder to learn new areas, and management thinks it’s faster for everything and
not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world
on 21 Jun 18:06
collapse
I think it’s still faster for a lot of things. If you have several different ideas for how to approach a problem the robot can POC them very quickly to help you decide which to use. And while doing that it’ll probably mention something that’ll give you ideas for another couple approaches. So you can come up with an optimal solution in about the same time as it’d take to clack out a single POC by hand.
Yeah, I was thinking about production code when I wrote that. Usually I can get something working faster that way, and for tests it can speed things up, too. But the code is so terrible in general
Edit: production isn’t exactly what I was thinking. Just like. Up to some standards above just working
It’s honestly kinda awful. I’ve been trying to use it a bit to help speed up some of my projects at work, and it’s a crapshoot how well it helps. Some days I can give it the function I’m writing with an explanation of purpose and error output and it helps me fix it in 5 minutes. Other days I spend an hour endlessly iterating through asinine replies that get me no where (like when I tried to use it to help figure out a bit very well documented API, had it correct me and use a different method/endpoint until it gave up and went back to my way that didn’t even work! I ended up just hacking together a workaround that got it done in the most annoying way possible, but it accomplished the task so WTFE)
A nice “trick”: After 4 or so responses where you can’t get anywhere, start a new chat without the wrong context. Of course refine your question with whatever you have found out in the previous chat.
fullsquare@awful.systems
on 21 Jun 09:49
nextcollapse
80000 hours are the same cultists from lesswrong/EA that believe singularity any time now and they’re also the core of people trying to build their imagined machine god in openai and anthropic
it’s all very much expected. verbose nonsense is their speciality and they did that way before time when chatbots were a thing
I feel that this article is based on beliefs that are optimism rather than empiricism or rational extrapolation, and trains of thought driven way into highly simplified territory.
Basically like the Lesswrong, self-proclaimed “longtermists” and Zizians crowds.
Illustrative example: Categorizing nannies under “human touch strongly preferred - perhaps as a luxury”. This assumes automation is not only possible to a degree way beyond what we see signs of, but that the service itself isn’t inherently human.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
on 21 Jun 11:50
nextcollapse
Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.
threaded - newest
That is the point where I stopped reading.
Yes, the author of this article should worry about AI, because AI is indeed quite effective in writing nonsense articles like this one. But AI is nowhere near replacing the real specialists. And it isn’t the question of quantity, it is a principal question of how modern “AIs” work. While those principles won’t change, AIs won’t be able to do any job that involves logic and stable repeated results.
It can complete coding tasks. But that’s not the same as replacing a developer. In the same way that cutting wood doesn’t make me a carpenter and soldering a wire doesn’t make me an electrician. I wish the AI crowd understood that.
It can complete coding tasks, but not well AND unsupervised. To get it to do something well I need to tell it what it did wrong over 4 or 5 iterations.
This is close to my experience for a lot of tasks, but unless I’m working in a tech stack I’m unfamiliar with, I find doing it myself leads to not just better results, but faster, too. Problem is it makes you have to work harder to learn new areas, and management thinks it’s faster for everything and
I think it’s still faster for a lot of things. If you have several different ideas for how to approach a problem the robot can POC them very quickly to help you decide which to use. And while doing that it’ll probably mention something that’ll give you ideas for another couple approaches. So you can come up with an optimal solution in about the same time as it’d take to clack out a single POC by hand.
Yeah, I was thinking about production code when I wrote that. Usually I can get something working faster that way, and for tests it can speed things up, too. But the code is so terrible in general
Edit: production isn’t exactly what I was thinking. Just like. Up to some standards above just working
Yep. I write code almost entirely with a. I now for my OWN projects.
The amount of iteration and editing it requires almost requires a new specialty dev called "A. I developer support. ".
It’s honestly kinda awful. I’ve been trying to use it a bit to help speed up some of my projects at work, and it’s a crapshoot how well it helps. Some days I can give it the function I’m writing with an explanation of purpose and error output and it helps me fix it in 5 minutes. Other days I spend an hour endlessly iterating through asinine replies that get me no where (like when I tried to use it to help figure out a bit very well documented API, had it correct me and use a different method/endpoint until it gave up and went back to my way that didn’t even work! I ended up just hacking together a workaround that got it done in the most annoying way possible, but it accomplished the task so WTFE)
A nice “trick”: After 4 or so responses where you can’t get anywhere, start a new chat without the wrong context. Of course refine your question with whatever you have found out in the previous chat.
80000 hours are the same cultists from lesswrong/EA that believe singularity any time now and they’re also the core of people trying to build their imagined machine god in openai and anthropic
it’s all very much expected. verbose nonsense is their speciality and they did that way before time when chatbots were a thing
ironically, replacing shitty clickbait journalists is something AI can and will likely do in the near future.
Huh, I wonder what wrote this stupid article on this not at all fishy fucking website. /s
I feel that this article is based on beliefs that are optimism rather than empiricism or rational extrapolation, and trains of thought driven way into highly simplified territory.
Basically like the Lesswrong, self-proclaimed “longtermists” and Zizians crowds.
Illustrative example: Categorizing nannies under “human touch strongly preferred - perhaps as a luxury”. This assumes automation is not only possible to a degree way beyond what we see signs of, but that the service itself isn’t inherently human.
Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.
😏
I’m not even gonna read it, but the 3rd pyramid is hilarious. Go on executives, just do it! See how it goes.