521–530 of 580 posts
> But on the other hand I think it won't create terminators. Just some silly roombas.
I watched a roomba try to find its way back to base the other day. The base was against a wall. The roomba kept running into the wall about a foot away from the base, because it kept insisting on approaching from a specific angle. Finally gave up after about 3 tries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When tasked to train a technology that deprecates yourself, it’s relatively OK (you’re getting paid handsomely, and many of the developers at Microsoft etc. are probably ready to retire soon anyway). It’s another thing to realize that the same technology will also deprecate your children.
The managers may believe that's what they're asking their developers to do, but doesn't this whole charade expose the fact that this technology just does not have even close to the claimed capabilities? I see it as wishful thinking in the extreme to suppose that probabilistic mashing together of plagiarized jigsaw pieces of code could somehow approach human intelligence and reasoning —and yet, the parlour trick is co…
Beyond every other absurdity here, well, maybe Microsoft is different, but I would never assign a PR that was _failing CI_ to somebody. That that's happening feels like an admission that the thing doesn't _really_ work at all; if it worked even slightly, it would at least only assign passing PRs, but presumably it's bad enough that if they put in that requirement there would be no PRs.
I feel like everyone is applying a worse-case narrative to what's going on here.. I see this as a work in progress.. I am almost certain the humans in the loop on these PRs are well aware of what's going on and have their expectations in check, and this isn't just "business as usual" like any other PR or work assignment. This is a test. You can't improve a system without testing it on real world conditions. How do we…
Unfortunately, just about every thread on this genre is like that now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't imagine how the people who have to deal with this are feeling. It's like you have a junior developer except they don't even read what you're telling them, and have 0 agency to understand what they're actually doing. That comparison is awful. I work with quite a few Junior developers and they can be competent. Certainly don't make the silly mistakes that LLMs do, don't need nearly as much handholding, and te…
> That said, I really don't see how it could meaningfully replace an intern however And even if it could, how do you get senior devs without junior devs? ^^
Some of those (or similar) people will actually learn new stuff and become senior devs. Yes, there will be much fewer of them, so they'll command a higher salary, and they will deliver amazing stuff. The rest, who spend their entire carrier being AI handlers, will never raise above junior/mid level.
(Well, either that or people who cannot program by themselves will get promoted anyway, the software will get more bugs and less features, and things will be generally worse for both consumers and programmers... but I prefer not to think about this option)
Interesting that every comment has "Help improve Copilot by leaving feedback using the or buttons" suffix, yet none of the comments received any feedback, either positive or negative. > This seems like it's fixing the symptom rather than the underlying issue? This is also my experience when you haven't setup a proper system prompt to address this for everything an LLM does. Funniest PRs are the ones that "resolves" t…
I recently, meaning hours ago, had this delightful experience watching the Eric of Google, which everybody love, including he's extra curricular girl friend and wife, talking about AI. He seemed to believe AI is under-hyped after tried it out himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4YRO7G0wE He also said in the video: > I brought a rocket company because it was like interesting. And it's an area that I'm not an ex…
Literally the killer app of AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how do you know it wasn't an AI bot account posting all those laugh emojis?
reactions are fine but cluttering the PR with comments? bad form
At least opening PRs is a safe option, you can just dump the whole thing if it doesn't turn out to be useful. Also, trying something new out will most likely have hiccups. Ultimately it may fail. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. The thing may rapidly evolve if it's being hard-tested on actual code and actual issues. For example it will be probably changed so that it will iterate until tests are actual…
> I expect it will find its niche in development and become actually useful, taking off menial tasks from developers. Reading AI generated code is arguably far more annoying than any menial task. Especially if the said code happens to have subtle errors. Speaking from experience.
Reviewing what the AI does now is not to be compared with human PRs. You are not doing the work as it is expected in the (hopefully near?) future but you are training the AI and the developers of the AI and more crucially: you are digging out failure modes to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true for all code and has nothing to do with AI. Reading code has always been harder than writing code. The joke is that PERL was a write-once, read-none language. > Speaking from experience. My experience is all code can have subtle errors, and I wouldn't treat any PR differently.
I agree, but when working with code written by your teammate you have a rough idea what kind of errors to expect. AI however is far more creative than any given single person. That's my gut feeling anyway. I don't have numbers or any other rigorous data. I only know that Linus Torvalds made a very good point about chain of trust. And I don't see myself ever trysting AI the same way I can trust a human.
I find it amusing that people (even here on HN) are expecting a brand new tool (among the most complex ever) to perform adequetely right off the bat. It will require a period of refinement, just as any other tool or process.
As the saying goes, It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. AI is aimed at eliminating the jobs of most of HN so it's understandable that HN doesn't want AI to succeed at its goal.
It is difficult for ceo/management to understand that the ai tools dont work when their salary depends on them working since they have invested billions into it.