121–130 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like googling is an essential skill for developers. In few years if Copilot deliver its promise, navigating it would be treated the same. You may also have an interview round wherein optimization would be how quickly can you get Copilot to write the expected code.
If this is what software engineering turns into, put a bullet through my head please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot is great as a 'smart auto-complete' or when you need to do pattern based drudge work... but that's not what this article is about . It's trying to sell people on copilot as a no-code tool. The leading question is this: >But as helpful as it is for coders, what if it enabled non-engineers to program too – by merely talking to an AI about their goals? and it answers this in my opinion deceptively by presenting…
Yeah, I agree Copilot is absolutely not a no-code tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that "toxicity" is not well-defined or black and white and you'll never be able to reach 100% accuracy is extremely obvious and not very interesting. That's probably why nobody is talking about it.
Sure, but we probably can work on that a little more rather than throwing in the towel and saying 'toxicity is when text matches regexp'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negative comments seem to assume an open loop development strategy where if copilot fails to give the 100% correct result it is a fail. Rather, even if it is wrong it can get you close and if not close it can give you ideas. You have to close the loop and use your own intelligence as well. For example I can't draw faces but I can recognize a badly drawn face. If I ask an AI: Please draw me a 35 year old man with…
> For example I can't draw faces but I can recognize a badly drawn face. If I ask an AI: Please draw me a 35 year old man with receding hair and crooked teeth I can quickly validate the result is fit for purpose. But code is not a face: you can't easily judge if it's correct or not, if you could you wouldn't need copilot in the first place, so now you have to trust it's correct and, if it isn't, you need to search fo…
I can critique a great book I couldn't write. I can marvel at John Carmack's early iD code without having been able to come up with it. I can be immensely impressed by what golfers produce for a mundane problem.
I'm not saying this is what copilot produces, but the concept could absolutely be useful, in theory.
I'm not sure people understand how utterly dystopian and fascist this is. It's like people believe that this is a good thing, instead of understanding how totalitarianism is spreading literally everywhere. "In the name of what's Good & Right, you have to behave how we want you to ... or else."
We're all focusing on the weaknesses of co-pilot (the comments can be longer than the code produced; you need to understand code to know when to elaborate your comment, etc). But also ... what do you need to know to recognize that the concept of a 'toxicity classifier' is likely broken? We can do _profanity_ detection pretty well, and without a huge amount of data. But with 1000 example comments, can you actually get…
This comment will of course be down voted, I'll attribute this to selection bias caused by the headline of the article. You can't classify a comment as boolean toxic, toxicity does not exist in a vacuum. To extend the analogy from it's biological counterpart, toxicity depends on the organism. You should never just a piece of text in isolation and draw any conclusion about it. It must understood in context, both that…
You'll be downvoted because that is obvious, irrelevant and has no practical consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but we probably can work on that a little more rather than throwing in the towel and saying 'toxicity is when text matches regexp'.
Well, we probably could throw in the towel. The definition of the word is ever-changing and context-dependent, AND subjective to the receiver. That doesn't sound like something you can train a model for.
You could do a similar thing with a robot DJ, by feeding it a stream of the dancefloor, and training it to keep that dancefloor grooving.
Can we ask Copilot to write a proof for the collatz conjecture? or P=NP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even though it is based on mostly human written code, Copilot makes mistakes that are different from the type human coders typically make. It will take a different skill set to detect and correct the errors made by systems like Copilot. The same is true for self-driving cars. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use these technologies, just that there will be adaptations to our behavior we'll need to make if we want t…
> Even though it is based on mostly human written code, Copilot makes mistakes that are different from the type human coders typically make. Can you give an example for this?