Earlier quoted context omitted.
If as GP says AI could automate 1% of a single programmer's job (the boring part where you write code), then how on earth can you derive that a single programmer could do the job of 5 with AI? It's completely illogical.
The GP estimate is way off... If they indeed wait for input from other departments/companies 99% of the time (so they just need to actually program 5 minutes in their 8-hour workday), then they can be already thrown out of a job and have the company do with 1/10 the programmers, no AI required...
Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
361–370 of 677 posts
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#362Here's my perspective on this as an Architect: Most construction details have been done before, they could be easily reproduced by an AI surely? There's usually just a few things that are different from the last time I have drawn it. A few 3D interactions with other components that need to be reasoned about. They are not that complicated individually. But yet I see this problem as well just using old fashioned automa…
Yes, this is pretty much exactly the way I've been using GPT and it works tremendously well. (GPT4 works especially well for this style of programming.) My prompts include things like:
- "read the function below and explain in detail what each section does" -- this prompts GPT to explain the code in its own terms, which then fills in its context with relevant "understanding" of the problem. I then use the vocabulary GPT uses in its explanation when I ask it to make further changes. This makes it much more likely to give me what I want.
- "I see this error message, what is the cause? It appears to be caused by $cause" -- if I'm able to diagnose the problem myself, I often include this in my prompt, so that its diagnosis is guided in the right direction.
- "this function is too complex, break it up into smaller functions, each with a clear purpose", or "this function has too many arguments, can you suggest ways the code could be refactored to reduce the number of arguments?" -- if you go through several rounds of changes with GPT, you can get quite convoluted code, but it's able to do some refactoring if prompted. (It turned out to be easier to do large-scale refactoring myself.)
- "write unit tests for these functions" -- this worked phenomenally well, GPT4 was able to come up with some genuinely useful unit tests. It also helped walk me through setting up mocks and stubs in Ruby's minitest library, which I wasn't experienced with.
In brief, if you expect to just give GPT a prompt and have it build the whole app for you, you either get lame results or derivative results. If you're willing to put the effort in, really think about the code you're writing, really think about the code GPT writes, guide GPT in the right direction, make sure you stay on top of code quality, etc, etc, GPT really is an outstanding tool.
In certain areas it easily made me 2x, 10x, or even 100x more productive (the 100x is in areas where I'd spend hours struggling with Google or Stack Overflow to solve some obscure issue). It's hard to say how much it globally increases my productivity, since it depends entirely on what I'm working on, but applied skilfully to the right problems it's an incredible tool. Its like a flexible, adaptive, powered exoskeleton that lets me scramble up rocky slops, climb up walls, leap over chasms, and otherwise do things far more smoothly and effectively.
The key is you have to know what you're doing, you have to know how to prompt GPT intelligently, and you have to be willing to put in maximal effort to solve problems. If you do, GPT is an insane force multiplier. I sound like I work in OpenAI's marketing department, but I love this tool so much :)
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we're seeing the early phases a prediction I made in my first book come true: That computers will be more suitable than humans for most of the functions humans currently use their left brain half for. Best case, that will have a whole lot more humans using their right brain halves on things like defining the problem. I like the thought of that, it's more pleasant work. But a lot of intelligent people define t…
> But a lot of intelligent people define their intelligence by how well their left brain half works and uncomfortable with how good Chatgpt is at those tasks. I think 'left brain' work also has a lot more predictability (knowing you can churn out ~X widgets/hr) so having only uncertain 'right brain' work can be uncomfortable for people to build their livelihoods upon. That being said. 'right brain' work is certainly…
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#364In before all the comments about how “most code is trivial” or “most programming is stuff that already exists” or “you’re missing the point look how it’s getting better”. I really am in awe of how much work people seem willing to do to justify this as revolutionary and programmers as infantile, and also why they do that. It’s fascinating. Thinking back to my first job out of college as a solid entry level programmer.…
I think It'll help with some tasks, which is always good to take. After all, people tweak their vim settings because they feel it makes them more productive.
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#365I want to see GPT-4 dealing with this situation: - they: we need a new basic POST endpoint - us: cool, what does the api contract look like? URL? Query params? Payload? Response? Status code? - they: Not sure. Third-party company XXQ will let you know the details. They will be the ones calling this new endpoint. But in essence it should be very simple: just grab whatever they pass and save it in our db - us: ok, cool…
Unless your problem space is unsolved (where LLMs are unlikely to be useful either) very few devs are spending much time on the coding part of their 84th CRUD app.
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be saying that there is fixed demand for programmers and oversupply means less hiring. But the history of technology says that demand is recursive; the more tech produced, the more demand there is for producers. There may be a time when we hit the old “the whole world only needs 5 computers”[0] limit, but I don’t think we’re anywhere close. AI is providing leverage to create net more programming; it is no…
Sounds a bit too much like a perpetual motion machine to me.
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#367Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so common in many types of business, and usually a very difficult point to articulate so thank you for that. It's something to be shown to those ringing the death-knell for programmers, artists, and the like. Those death-knell types seemingly aren't aware of what day to day operations looks like and how AI makes a great tool, but doesn't necessarily deal with the very human factors of whims, uncertainty, reac…
I think the fear should be less about AI taking 100% of jobs but it should be AI making a single programmer do the job of 5, which would wipe a majority of the market out and make it a non-viable career option for most. Companies are already bloated, imagine when they realize one overworked highly paid senior can replace 10 juniors.
That is already possible without AI and has been the case for a long time... the issue is nobody will stay to be that highly paid senior running entire projects because at that point you can just run your own shop and pocket the full profits.
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP estimate is way off... If they indeed wait for input from other departments/companies 99% of the time (so they just need to actually program 5 minutes in their 8-hour workday), then they can be already thrown out of a job and have the company do with 1/10 the programmers, no AI required...
Clearly the company needs to dedicate a programmer to wait on each customer individually. You can’t have the same person waiting for two things simultaneously.
Re: Testing GPT 4's code-writing capabilities with some real world problems
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
To paraphrase Harold Abelson: Computer Science is not really very much about computers. And it’s not about computers in the same sense that physics isn’t really about particle accelerators, and biology is not really about microscopes and petri dishes. It is about formalizing intuitions about process: how to do things [0]. [0]: https://www.driverlesscrocodile.com/technology/the-wizard-1-... .
That's irrelevant though, because actual programming is very much about computers, and about writing things the majority of which have already been formalized by computer scientists, and gluing code and programs inti pipelines...