No, ChatGPT made you the money that your app generated since you had no ability to implement it otherwise/without ChatGPT. Your inability to code, debug, log, monitor cost you the $10k. ChatGPT is net positive in this story.
$10k.. peanuts. Elon might lose $500B to his xAI mistake that came out today: https://grook.ai/share?id=e269e88a7b1a71eff4f176c864b30161&x...
A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
361–370 of 526 posts
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#362I am not python developer. And I neither intend my career to go there in near future. But I asked ChatGPT what's wrong about this code, (Not sure it's my custom instruction or not) but it always starts assuming the imports are the issue.
Once I asked the imports are not the issue, It correctly pointed out, and explained the problemetic code at me...
I whish they could ask another question to LLM and have an issue pointed out..
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#363I spotted the error instantly. With all due respect to your team - this has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with using a programming model that your team does not have sufficient expertise in. Even if this error managed to slip by code review, it would have been caught with virtually any monitoring solution, many of which take less than 5 minutes to set up.
Having no real experience with python I would assume uuid.uuid4() was some schema definition (like in prisma), so honestly the fact that this bug exists is not surprising at all and I would have done the same mistake myself, but yah one kubectl logs would have been able to catch it immediately.
...also from next.js and prisma to python? ...what?
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is correct, it's one of the most surprising things about Python and it causes a number of mistakes, even for experts. The easiest way to see this is by running something like this and seeing what gets printed out and when: print("1. start") def function(arg=print("2. func definition")): print("4. func call") print("3. after definition") function() function() function() You should see that the print statement in th…
> it's one of the most surprising things about Python and it causes a number of mistakes, even for experts. Except every python 101 text seems to go over it, and people seem to have suddenly forgotten about it ChatGPT driven development maybe?
This has been a source of bugs since long before ChatGPT. I suspect Python tutorials mention it so often because it's such a surprising feature and causes so much confusion. I've been using Python for fifteen years, and it's the sort of thing that I'll still absent-mindedly forget if I'm not careful.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#365No, ChatGPT made you the money that your app generated since you had no ability to implement it otherwise/without ChatGPT. Your inability to code, debug, log, monitor cost you the $10k. ChatGPT is net positive in this story.
Looking at this team's project at github.com/reworkd, it clearly tells the maturity of the product as well as the team. Emoji driven development. Emoji's for all commit messages. Monkeys, bananas, rockets, fireworks, you name it, they have it in their commit message.
The co-founder's PR descriptions aren't much better https://github.com/reworkd/AgentGPT/pull/1372#issue-19887599...
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#366I spotted the error instantly. With all due respect to your team - this has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with using a programming model that your team does not have sufficient expertise in. Even if this error managed to slip by code review, it would have been caught with virtually any monitoring solution, many of which take less than 5 minutes to set up.
It's not some innocent mistake. The title is purposefully clickbait / keyword-y, implying that it was chatgpt that made the 'mistake' for SEO and to generate panicked clicks. "We made a programming error in our use of an LLM, didn't do any QA, and it cost us $10k" doesn't generate the C-suite "oh shit what if ChatGPT fucks up, what's our exposure!?" reaction. There's a million middle and upper management posting this…
>By definition they're not capable of "mistakes" because nothing they generate is remotely guaranteed to be correct or accurate.
This makes no sense. Only things that are guaranteed to be correct or accurate can make mistakes? Everyone knows what "mistake" means in this context. Nobody cares what your preferred definition of mistake is.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is correct, it's one of the most surprising things about Python and it causes a number of mistakes, even for experts. The easiest way to see this is by running something like this and seeing what gets printed out and when: print("1. start") def function(arg=print("2. func definition")): print("4. func call") print("3. after definition") function() function() function() You should see that the print statement in th…
My canonical example is that you want a function to have an argument that defaults to an empty list: def func(arg=[]): arg.append(1) print(arg) func() func() func() shoving a print into a function definition is weird and not something you'd do normally. But someone who doesn't know this footgun is going to write a function that defaults to an empty list, and then tear their hair out when things are broken.
That's true, this is the example that most people will run into in practice. But the print example is useful because it shows what's going on more explicitly: the default argument gets evaluated as part of the function's definition. I think this helps people get a better intuition for how Python's interpreter works when it comes to evaluating function definitions.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#368I have seen the same mistake made in code created by humans. Many times, especially in react / typescript/ JavaScript, someone will forget to use a lambda. I felt the blog post failed to articulate the root cause of the issue and went straight to blaming ChatGPT. When you rush and make large or non peer code reviewed commits to main it is going to happen. The real issue was when you rush, take shortcuts and don’t ade…
My mental model for ChatGPT is that it’s an entry-level engineer that will never be promoted to a terminal level and will eventually be let go. However, this engineer can type infinitely fast, which means it might be useful if used very carefully. Anyway, letting such a person near financially important code would lead to similar issues, and in both cases, I’d question the judgment of the person that decided to deplo…
This is kind of how it works with Real Engineering™ and other licensed professions - it's the non-licensed people doing most of the grunt work, the PE/architect/licensed professional reviews and signs off on it. But then, by virtue of their signature, they're still on the hook for any problems.
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#369The blog post is 404ing, here's a Web archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20240610032818/https://asim.bear... The author has added an important edit: > I want to preface this by saying yes the practices here are very bad and embarrassing (and we've since added robust unit/integration tests and alerting/logging), could/should have been avoided, were human errors beyond anything, and very obvious in hindsight. > >…
Seems like he changed the subdomain or something, the article is still up
https://0912i390129ionkjan.bearblog.dev/how-a-single-chatgpt...
Re: A ChatGPT mistake cost us $10k
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's one of the most surprising things about Python and it causes a number of mistakes, even for experts. Except every python 101 text seems to go over it, and people seem to have suddenly forgotten about it ChatGPT driven development maybe?
This has been a source of bugs since long before ChatGPT. I suspect Python tutorials mention it so often because it's such a surprising feature and causes so much confusion. I've been using Python for fifteen years, and it's the sort of thing that I'll still absent-mindedly forget if I'm not careful.
Ironically, in C++ - which does it the other way around - the tutorials mention that often because it is also such a surprising feature (i.e. people do not expect evaluation to occur every time there).
Thing is, there's no obviously correct behavior here, and there are valid arguments to be made either way. Which is why many languages dodge the bullet by only allowing for compile-time constants as defaults in that context (and if you want to evaluate something at runtime, you can always use an optional and do an explicit check inside the body, or provide an overload).