471–480 of 519 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it speeds it up considerably. More heaps of messy software produced much faster.
Doesn't that get the people who aren't doing due diligence fired faster?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me provide a counterpoint - ChatGPT made the code base more readable, it was able to integrate a few useful solutions the devs didn't know about, it helped write tests and even came up with a few good ones on its own.
Going meta for a bit: before you can use a tool to produce medical device software, that tool must be qualified for use. I'd really like to see what the qualification process for ChatGPT would look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many colleagues could you ask "Can you write me a PoC for a horizontally scalable, probabilistic database in Rust, using Raft-based consensus? I couldn't agree more. I work as a software engineer in the medical field (think MRI's, X-rays, that sort of thing). I've started using ChatGPT all the time to write the code, and then I just fix it up a bit. So far it's working great!
Jesus! I hope this is some US fad, and I never ever come across those devices! Instead of using formal methods as they should they use AI, which is more or less the complete contrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would offer similar sentiment for aerospace.
The above two comments show the difference between software "engineers" vs "developers"...and none of the major social media platforms (and other consumer-level applications) employ engineers.
This isn't the way pharmaceuticals are developed; we don't require the pharma companies to know how they work (and we shouldn't, because we don't know how many common safe drugs work). We validate them by testing them instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Often incorrect context, incredibly biased context And as you learn more from different sources, you get better at identifying them. > or just plain outdated Which you can plainly see by looking at the date of publication. In the case of Stack Overflow, it is common that popular questions have newer answers which invalidate old ones and replace them at the top. > People who blindly copy and paste and ship are alway…
Sure, but do you have a solution to the problem that doesn't also hinder those who are using both StackOverflow and ChatGPT for "good"? Without a solution we're just whining about bad actors existing.
Yesterday I asked chatgpt to compute the probability that two words of five letters both began with the same three letters and it could not solve it. It gave me about 10 different results but all were wrong, it seems the number five mislead the algorithm. Another question was computing the variance of the sum of 60 dices but omitting the results where the sum was greater than 200, the reasoning was incorrect in all c…
> Yesterday I asked chatgpt to compute the probability that two words of five letters both began with the same three letters and it could not solve it. IMO, this is irrelevant, because "normal people" would never ask this question. Because it has never been asked, there's also not a ChatGPT answer to it, because its answers are based on already existing information. This thinking that ChatGPT is AI is just wrong. It'…
I really see it kind of like having a good junior programmer or intern helping me out who has an incredibly broad amount of knowledge. Sometimes they need some coaching or gentle correction, sometimes you say, "I'll take it from here", but inevitably there are those times where you think, "Great job! I'm really impressed!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going meta for a bit: before you can use a tool to produce medical device software, that tool must be qualified for use. I'd really like to see what the qualification process for ChatGPT would look like.
What is the qualification for using StackOverflow or a library book? What's the qualification for the keyboard that might introduce errors (hello, MacBook) or the monitor that might render improperly?
A keyboard would be an example of a source whose output is 100% verified: we assume that you can see what you're typing. A process with 100% verification does not need to be separately qualified or validated.
I'm not sure how monitor errors could factor into this, can you elaborate?
What I really love is the unbounded optimism of the AI. How many colleagues could you ask "Can you write me a PoC for a horizontally scalable, probabilistic database in Rust, using Raft-based consensus?" that would then just think for a second and go "Certainly! Let's start by ...". These people exist, but they're one in a thousand (or million?). ChatGPT basically does that for almost every prompt you throw at it. So…
Am I the only one that's been disappointed with GPT for coding? It's good at using common libraries and frameworks but for stuff using more niche libraries it fails miserably almost every time, to the extent that by the time I've debugged and written prompts to try and get it to do it properly I've spent more time than needed still good for handling a lot of grunge work and really useful for doing the stuff where I'm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Developers who use this for serious stuff, how goes your reasoning? Is it just a calculated risk? Reward is greater than the risk? It seems obvious that AI is the future, and that ChatGPT is the most advanced AI ever created. For me (in the medical industry), if something goes wrong and someone dies a horrible death, I can just say that I didn't write that code, ChatGPT did. Not my fault. Next time you are at the h…
I can't believe people are taking your comment seriously. How far has reality moved into parody, if a comment saying you'll be happy to blame ChatGPT when people die doesn't go far enough to give it away? Maybe they're just replying without having properly read your post, but that's not great either.