81–87 of 87 posts
If a weakness is common, then of course Copilot is going to suggest it. Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. Yet if a weakness is common, it also means that human coders frequently make the same mistake as well. The studies results are rather unsurprising and its conclusions are oft-repeated advice. As many have said, treat copilot’s code in the same light you would treat a junior programmer’s code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that Copilot Chat and the regular completion are the same model. Do you have a source that says so? I'd assumed that they were two different models, since they're quite different tasks.
you don't need to use the chat to test whether it was exclusively trained on github or not. I started typing this in my IDE in a rust project I already had open: // the following function prints out the best soccer players of all time, which teams they played for, and why they were great as a hashmap fn soccer_greats() -> Hashmap , String)> { let mut hm = HashMap::new(); it completed with the following: hm.insert("Pe…
In the context of the person I replied to, the point is that it isn't made up primarily of a bunch of communications between programmers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that Copilot Chat and the regular completion are the same model. Do you have a source that says so? I'd assumed that they were two different models, since they're quite different tasks.
Footnote 1 on page 2 explicitly mentions the 3.5 model and the research in this paper is only about auto completion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.15033.pdf And this blog post states “beyond Codex”, again for auto completion: https://github.blog/2023-07-28-smarter-more-efficient-coding... Lastly, OpenAI states on the original Codex page: “OpenAI Codex is a descendant of GPT-3; its training data contains both natural lan…
Also, I wasn't contesting that autocomplete uses GPT 3.5 as the base model, I was contesting the idea that it uses the same derivative model as chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is, it's not a comparison at all. Intelligence is a trait, you either have it or not. We also use the same word for "how smart you are", but that measurement doesn't change anything about AI being intelligent or not. It can be dumb, but intelligent.
There's little value in that statement. Intelligence is IMO an inherently comparative measure. It's not "on/off", it's "smarter" (than a pile of rocks, than a slug, than another human). So, yeah, you can be a dumb human but you'd be a smart chimpanzee. But we want to be comparing apples with apples in the context of this topic. When people say "AI", everyone implicitly assumes the comparison with human intelligence.…
Do you also think that "intelligent alien life in space" means comparable to humans? What if we find something capable of reasoning, abstract thinking, rationality, adaptibility, etc - but much, much dumber than humans? That's intelligence, comparison to humans doesn't change anything about that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence - how could there be animal intelligence if "intelligence" means comparable to humans? "Crows are intelligent but nowhere near human-level" - this statement wouldn't make any sense if you're right, but it actually does make sense, IMHO.
> There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.
That thing with AI is called moving goalposts. And the finer terms - yeah of course we need to be able to be specific about our software, doesn't mean that's not AI. We talked about shape recognition in neuropsychology for much longer than in AI, same for many more terms that will certainly be reused soon.
As always the statistic is useless without the human comparison. If it improves on human coders, no amount of gnashing and wailing will stop the layoffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would likely help a little bit. We've already seen LLMs improve performance on some tasks by being instructed to "think carefully" first; presumably this biases it towards parts of the training set that are higher quality. But security ultimately requires comprehension, which is not something LLMs have.
Security 100% does not require comprehension in the philosophical sense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security 100% does not require comprehension in the philosophical sense
Not sure what the philosophical sense would be. I just mean that an awful lot of people treat security as "hack on the code until it doesn't obviously break", and that's the wrong mindset for practical security.
I think your point is otherwise right, but the correct answer is standard best practices which is the easiest thing for bots to do