Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An example of LLM prompting for programming

martinfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 297 posts

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#161

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

rootusrootus wrote: post #155
gdubs wrote: post #154

There's an unfortunately common take on AI that goes basically like this: "I tried it and it didn't do what I wanted, not impressed." My suggestion is to tune out the noise and really try experimenting with these tools – and know that they're rapidly improving. Even if ultimately you have criticisms or decide one way or another, at least really investigate them for your own use-cases rather than jumping on a bandwago…

I agree it's a good idea to take a moderate approach. The hype that LLMs are going to replace SWEs is clearly just that, hype, if you've done any real work trying to get GPT4 to give you the code you want. But it's also clearly a very useful tool. I think it'll absolutely destroy Stack Overflow.

> destroy Stack Overflow

It'll be interesting to see how future training data is sourced.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#162

Post by mise_en_place »

gdubs wrote: post #154

There's an unfortunately common take on AI that goes basically like this: "I tried it and it didn't do what I wanted, not impressed." My suggestion is to tune out the noise and really try experimenting with these tools – and know that they're rapidly improving. Even if ultimately you have criticisms or decide one way or another, at least really investigate them for your own use-cases rather than jumping on a bandwago…

I was very impressed when it showed me the different techniques for deep reinforcement learning. However, where it struggles is when building an agent. Because you will need a high amount of tokens to template a prompt, in the case of langchain or AutoGPT.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#163

Post by rootusrootus »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #161
rootusrootus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's a good idea to take a moderate approach. The hype that LLMs are going to replace SWEs is clearly just that, hype, if you've done any real work trying to get GPT4 to give you the code you want. But it's also clearly a very useful tool. I think it'll absolutely destroy Stack Overflow.

> destroy Stack Overflow It'll be interesting to see how future training data is sourced.

Github would be my first guess.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#164

Post by svachalek »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #161
rootusrootus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's a good idea to take a moderate approach. The hype that LLMs are going to replace SWEs is clearly just that, hype, if you've done any real work trying to get GPT4 to give you the code you want. But it's also clearly a very useful tool. I think it'll absolutely destroy Stack Overflow.

> destroy Stack Overflow It'll be interesting to see how future training data is sourced.

You simply need the system to train itself on its own interactions, like how search engines improve results by counting clicks.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#166

Post by z3c0 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #155
gdubs wrote: post #154

There's an unfortunately common take on AI that goes basically like this: "I tried it and it didn't do what I wanted, not impressed." My suggestion is to tune out the noise and really try experimenting with these tools – and know that they're rapidly improving. Even if ultimately you have criticisms or decide one way or another, at least really investigate them for your own use-cases rather than jumping on a bandwago…

I agree it's a good idea to take a moderate approach. The hype that LLMs are going to replace SWEs is clearly just that, hype, if you've done any real work trying to get GPT4 to give you the code you want. But it's also clearly a very useful tool. I think it'll absolutely destroy Stack Overflow.

I am very critical of the LLM hype, but the threat to stackoverflow is evident. Like stackoverflow, I never write code verbatim that comes from even GPT4. I frequently find issues in the output, as the code I write is generally very context-specific. However, I find the back-and-forth with interesting tidbits of info dropped here-and-there amounts to something like rubber duck debugging on steroids.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#167

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #155
gdubs wrote: post #154

There's an unfortunately common take on AI that goes basically like this: "I tried it and it didn't do what I wanted, not impressed." My suggestion is to tune out the noise and really try experimenting with these tools – and know that they're rapidly improving. Even if ultimately you have criticisms or decide one way or another, at least really investigate them for your own use-cases rather than jumping on a bandwago…

I agree it's a good idea to take a moderate approach. The hype that LLMs are going to replace SWEs is clearly just that, hype, if you've done any real work trying to get GPT4 to give you the code you want. But it's also clearly a very useful tool. I think it'll absolutely destroy Stack Overflow.

[deleted]

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#168

Post by moyix »

iudqnolq wrote: post #108
moyix wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number is 40%, and it's 40% of code written by Copilot users . It's also just for Python: > In files where it’s enabled, nearly 40% of code is being written by GitHub Copilot in popular coding languages, like Python—and we expect that to increase. https://github.blog/2022-06-21-github-copilot-is-generally-a...

I wonder if this properly counts cases where copilot writes a bunch of code and then I delete it all and rewrite it manually.

From what I remember they check in at a few intervals after the suggestion is made and use string matching to check how much of the Copilot-written code remains.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#169

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

rootusrootus wrote: post #163
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroy Stack Overflow It'll be interesting to see how future training data is sourced.

Github would be my first guess.

That does seem like a likely option. Discussions on issues alongside the actual working (and not working) code.

Re: An example of LLM prompting for programming

#170

Post by krupan »

mpaepper wrote: post #150
1024core wrote: post #104

For some reason, this reminds me of how we used to give instructions to Indian coders in the 90s and early 2000s. You would have to spell out everything. What you got back was nearly there, but some back-and-forth was involved. This brings back some terrible memories.

The big difference is that you get the results immediately and iterations take minutes not days

Yes, you can a ton more code that you have to check over with a fine toothed comb in much less time! Is that a win?
Post reply on HN