51–60 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To determine if a post on StackOverflow is generated by ChatGPT, you could look for certain characteristics that are typical of posts generated by the model. For example, ChatGPT posts may contain repetitive or nonsensical phrases, lack coherence or context, or have a distinctive "machine-like" writing style. Additionally, you can check the user profile of the poster to see if it indicates that the user is a language…
This has become a meme, at this point. - my opinion, not generated by ChatGPT.
- same as you
I think the ban on ChatGPT answers on Stack Overflow is a mistake. Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute, which can only be a good thing for the community. Plus, it's not like the moderators have to accept every answer - they can still weed out the bad ones. Let's not punish everyone bec…
— Human who watches SciFi movies
I think the ban on ChatGPT answers on Stack Overflow is a mistake. Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute, which can only be a good thing for the community. Plus, it's not like the moderators have to accept every answer - they can still weed out the bad ones. Let's not punish everyone bec…
And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute.
Actually, that means that fewer people and one robot will contribute.
But as the SO administrators say, these answer are close enough to true to require a lot of effort on the part administrators - and this stuff may promise a rocky road for answer and discussion sites in the near future. And that would not mean that more people are "participating" either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found a great example to demonstrate. I asked how to transpile Lisp to C. It perfectly described what transpiling is, said (correctly) that not all Lisp structures will translate directly into C, so those parts of the code may be broken, then gave this method for transpiling: sbcl --script example.lsp --output example.c Now... that would be REALLY GREAT if it was true. But SBCL is not a transpiler (except for bytec…
What happens when you give it the Lisp code and ask ChatGPT to do the transpiling?
(defun num-atoms(list)
(cond
((null list) 0)
((atom list) 1)
(t (+ (num-atoms (car list)) (num-atoms (cdr list))))))
#include
#include
typedef struct list_node {
int data;
struct list_node *next;
} list_node;
int num_atoms(list_node *list) {
if (list == NULL) {
return 0;
} else if (list->next == NULL) {
return 1;
} else {
return num_atoms(list->next) + num_atoms(list->next->next);
}
}
int main() {
list_node \*list = NULL;
printf("%d\n", num_atoms(list));
return 0;
}
"Note that this implementation of the num_atoms function is not equivalent to the original Lisp function, as it does not correctly handle the (atom list) case. In C, it is not possible to directly check whether a value is an atom, as atoms are not a fundamental concept in C. To properly implement the num_atoms function in C, a more detailed specification of what is meant by an "atom" would be needed."
I then asked ChatGPT: "Make a function in C that duplicates (atom list) from Lisp" since that was the recommendation.
I like to think it got impatient with me badgering it about this subject, because the response starts with "As mentioned earlier, atoms are not a fundamental concept in C, so it is not possible to directly implement a function that duplicates the behavior of (atom list) in Lisp." But it then followed up with C code that approximates it (by simply checking if something is a list or not), and then explains why it is still not exactly the same as Lisp's implementation, and that it won't work correctly in every case as it would under Lisp.
It then ended with "The definition of an atom and the way it is identified may vary depending on the specific requirements of the problem being solved."
This could be quite educational. I really expected it to "make shit up," but it was pretty spot on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found a great example to demonstrate. I asked how to transpile Lisp to C. It perfectly described what transpiling is, said (correctly) that not all Lisp structures will translate directly into C, so those parts of the code may be broken, then gave this method for transpiling: sbcl --script example.lsp --output example.c Now... that would be REALLY GREAT if it was true. But SBCL is not a transpiler (except for bytec…
Reminds me of a story I read where an advanced computer (we'd call it AI now) when asked a question it couldn't answer, would simulate an entire universe where the question was answered, and then determine the answer and report back. And it'd get things like the sbcl command line above, because that was the right answer in the particular universe where the question could be answered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so, especially for StackOverflow. I want correct answers, not answers that just look correct.
Yep. Stable diffusion is powerful because there's no "right answer". Just better/worse variations of a prompt. GPT is going to be amazing for telling stories. Particularly, for "too literal" software engineers, like me. However, it doesn't seem to offer much in terms of hard, factual information that technical fields rely on.
StackOverflow and Google are finished. This is expected and it may not look like it now, but banning an advancement in technology (even temporary) is usually the first step to irrelevance of those pushing back. In a few years from now when ChatGPT and perhaps the much awaited GPT-4 are released, get better, (or even an implementation is open sourced) it will further plummet the usage for SO and Google. The genie is o…
I tried ChatGPT with a few SO questions as input, it was completely missing the point of the questions more often than not. I got 3 bad answers and one correct one out of it. The scary part was just how confidently incorrect it was. The text looked very good, but there were big errors in there. I also tried to ask it a scientific question on a pretty niche field, and it produced a very reasonably looking answer. Most…
Ask ChatGPT to do any engineering work, and it falls flat. It's poor mathematical skills and lack of ability to create complex plans mean that it is relying purely on it's coherent-sounding dialog.
In it (I'm paraphrasing here) the open internet is destroyed by media companies who flood the internet with "good garbage", that is stuff that is _almost_ correct.
It forced people to pay for curated accurate content (that is, pay the same people who generated the good garbage in the first place).