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

GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 221 posts

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#141

Post by DrBenCarson »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #86
mjr00 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember it being vastly overhyped about how artists were now obsolete, but it really hasn't happened. People have quickly became very attuned to the "AI art style"--humans are excellent at pattern recognition, after all--and if anything, it's made people appreciate how important an artists' individual style and attention to detail is.

People don’t make art for money (mostly) People do write code for money (mostly) See the difference? How would you feel if developers earned as much as artists do?

I’m getting at the fact that “art” isn’t a major cost for the most valuable companies in the world. Software development labor is an enormous cost.

There is no financial incentive to replace paid artists. There is an enormous financial incentive to reduce software development headcount.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#142

Post by HDThoreaun »

capableweb wrote: post #117
zamnos wrote: post #61

Is it? According to OpenAI's paper GPT-4 GPT-4 (no vision) GPT-3.5 Leetcode (easy) 31 / 41 31 / 41 12 / 41 Leetcode (medium) 21 / 80 21 / 80 8 / 80 Leetcode (hard) 3 / 45 3 / 45 0 / 45 https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf Table 1; page 5. So it's better than GPT-3.5, but still pretty pathetic at hard Leetcode problems. If your programming job is closer to leetcode easy problems you might be in trouble, but for the…

What is "Leetcode (hard)" specifically? Searching for it brought me to a website ( https://leetcode.com/ ) but I'm assuming that is referring to some special list of problems that are meant to be harder than others, but I cannot find that.

The problems are all labeled with a difficulty.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#143

Post by [deleted] »

carapace wrote: post #8

Well, I think I just retired. Even knowing this was coming, it's still a bit unnerving. Sad too, but it's for the best. Let the machines program the machines. Schmidhuber's Gödelmachine. The automatic scientist .

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#144

Post by awb »

LeftHandPath wrote: post #52

Are software engineers going to go the way of human “computers”? I know GPT-4 won’t put us all out of work, but I worry that something could in a number of decades I can count on one hand. Of course, it would be gradual. I am excited, disappointed, and as a young person who hopes to be a SWE for a long time, somewhat afraid. Then again, it could be argued that this merely means GPT4 is a compiler…

It’s got to be one of the first areas to lose significant jobs.

Products are more about audience and experience rather than amazing technology.

If GPT4+ can spit out an API and an unstyled front end that a designer can beautify, that’s a massive productivity boost. It’s not there yet, but it’s improvements are amazing.

I find myself acting more as a software architect with GPT, using it to spit out functions.

But there’s a cultural shift that happens when your non-technical friend starts using technology. Like when non-tech folks started embracing the internet or using smart phones or creating social media accounts.

When everyone you know can use GPT to build software, that’s when you’ll be out of a job. Until then it’ll probably just become increasingly more competitive.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#145

Post by mr_toad »

cozzyd wrote: post #108

I wonder how well it compares to a compiler at converting C++ or rust to assembly. (C is too easy, almost anyone can do that by hand...)

I’d guess it would do badly. There isn’t much assembly code on the web for it to be trained on.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#146

Post by mjr00 »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #141
DrBenCarson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t make art for money (mostly) People do write code for money (mostly) See the difference? How would you feel if developers earned as much as artists do?

I’m getting at the fact that “art” isn’t a major cost for the most valuable companies in the world. Software development labor is an enormous cost. There is no financial incentive to replace paid artists. There is an enormous financial incentive to reduce software development headcount.

> There is no financial incentive to replace paid artists. There is an enormous financial incentive to reduce software development headcount.

Older folks will remember when the solution to this was to outsource development to low-cost regions like South American or Southeast Asia. You can ask ChatGPT how that went.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#147

Post by worrycue »

amelius wrote: post #84
LightMachine wrote: post #9

It managed to write, in one shot, a working λ-calculus parser, using a very specific programming style I asked it in JavaScript, and then translated it all to Python, including sarcastic, rhyming GLaDOS comments. https://twitter.com/VictorTaelin/status/1635726202231988225 It also seems to be extremely competent at writing Agda types and proofs. We need some tool that highly integrates it with entire codebases, allowi…

I don't think this is a good test. Every CS graduate student has to write a lambda-calculus parser. There must be thousands of implementations on the web. It really is not strange that GPT-4 can reproduce this.

Frankly, if ChatGPT is only good at reproducing commonly written code, I don’t think it will impact the profession much given that code reuse is already a thing and lots are distributed free on the internet.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#148

Post by TrackerFF »

zamnos wrote: post #61

Is it? According to OpenAI's paper GPT-4 GPT-4 (no vision) GPT-3.5 Leetcode (easy) 31 / 41 31 / 41 12 / 41 Leetcode (medium) 21 / 80 21 / 80 8 / 80 Leetcode (hard) 3 / 45 3 / 45 0 / 45 https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf Table 1; page 5. So it's better than GPT-3.5, but still pretty pathetic at hard Leetcode problems. If your programming job is closer to leetcode easy problems you might be in trouble, but for the…

What this tells me is that doing technical interviews online is going to become even more of a hassle.

Either you'll have to completely surrender yourself to a battery of various "anti-cheating" software, or the problem difficulty is going to go through the roof.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#149

Post by lisasays »

I'm the "really good", but definitely not "phenomenal" camp.

That is, it works - but what is with the repeated class declaration for every h3 element?

    1. Pruning
The whole point of CSS is to have to declare properties like this once, and only once, for a group of functionally similar elements.

Also note that switchTab has to be told the position of the tab it's switching to (it should be able to infer that the element's id, or its position in the list). Also note that the function has a hard-coded tab count baked in - a stealth bug waiting to be tripped on.

And why do we need to explicitly toggle the border-b-2 and border-yellow-400 properties? Shouldn't these be tucked away under some kind of class declaration (the same way the hidden property works)?

This may sound like nitpicking, but it's not - code like this becomes really hard to maintain at scale.

And just imagine someone asking this thing to generate an algorithm to say, determine whether someone's medical procedure should be covered under insurance or not.

Re: GPT-4 is phenomenal at Code

#150

Post by ramesh31 »

CapstanRoller wrote: post #137
moonchrome wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think experience is going to become a multiplier of value here, there will be a first adopter advantage and lower cost is going to create demand.

"Tendency of the rate of profit to fall" affects labor, too. Sure, you may have a temporary advantage by leveraging AI and effectively doing labor arbitrage (the same way some craftsmen could gain a temporary advantage over others if they had access to rare/expensive tooling in the early days of the Industrial Revolution) but this advantage will quickly disappear as AI tooling becomes cheap and ubiquitous.

>Sure, you may have a temporary advantage by leveraging AI and effectively doing labor arbitrage (the same way some craftsmen could gain a temporary advantage over others if they had access to rare/expensive tooling in the early days of the Industrial Revolution) but this advantage will quickly disappear as AI tooling becomes cheap and ubiquitous.

"You only have to get rich once."

Post reply on HN