421–430 of 1001 posts
Personally I think this whole class of feature only offers trivial short-term efficiency gains at the expense of long-term professional development and deeper understanding of your field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's just because humans are not as creative as they think. Whatever you do, thousands of others have done the same already. So no need to pay a high level programmer, just a mediocre one and the right AI assistant gives the same results.
> So no need to pay a high level programmer, just a mediocre one and the right AI assistant gives the same results. I think of it as not needing juniors for boring work, all you need as a company is seniors and AI.
Sure, you might say "it's all marketing and if AP exists nobody would buy CP", but I don't think it's that simple. Customers understand when their expectations are being met, exceeded, or let down.
Other than that single issue, which is really a set of issues, it seems to work really well from the videos I've seen.
I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So no need to pay a high level programmer, just a mediocre one and the right AI assistant gives the same results. I think of it as not needing juniors for boring work, all you need as a company is seniors and AI.
So where do these seniors come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We think that software development is entering its third wave of productivity change. The first was the creation of tools like compilers, debuggers, garbage collectors, and languages that made developers more productive. The second was open source where a global community of developers came together to build on each other's work. The third revolution will be the use of AI in coding. The problems we spend our days sol…
Let's solve the problem of replacing CEOs next. The above paragraph could have been written by GPT-3 already.
I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…
Most codebases already majorly contain unread code; the libraries (node_modules, etc). I am sure we can figure out a pattern to separate human vs machine code in similar way.
If the code you are about to write is already written by someone else on the internet, that's probably not the most innovative part of your codebase anyway, so why waste time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't do that, and we are taking steps to avoid reciting training data in the output: https://copilot.github.com/#faq-does-github-copilot-recite-c... https://docs.github.com/en/early-access/github/copilot/resea... In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning community – is that training ML models is fair use. We are certain this…
> It shouldn't do that, and we are taking steps to avoid reciting training data in the output This just gives me a flashback to copying homework in school, “make sure you change some of the words around so it’s not obvious” I’m sure you’re right Re: jurisprudence, but it never sat right with me that AI engineers get to produce these big, impressive models but the people who created the training data will never be com…