What ChatGPT and AI-Based Program Generation Mean for Future of Software

>No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently".

Evidence: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-artists-getty-images-...

https://futurism.com/artists-furious-about-ai-that-draws-por...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ai-art-len...

https://80.lv/articles/artists-are-getting-concerned-about-a...

https://hyperallergic.com/791951/artist-banned-from-subreddi...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake9me/artists-are-revolt-ag...

https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1577702194500861956?lang=e...

I am saying this in the nicest way possible with no intended offense. But you are actually living under a rock if you haven't been following the news.

>But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything.

"Violently" is just an expression. There's no actual violence here. But there is intense resistance on legal grounds and online attacks.

>I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you.

That's just an excuse. These AIs and megacorps were appropriating the art for decades. Google hijacks images from artists for years and caches them on their servers. No artist complained to this extent EVER. Not until AI got to the point where it can create art just as good as the artists themselves... then all of a sudden it's a problem? come on man. This is an attack on AI not on copying art. Don't kid yourself.

Not to be an ass but they're the most inflammatory sources of news I know, I won't even open an article from "Independent" for my own mental health.

Sorry, but you're just wasting my time with rot and weak arguments. Trying to say artists are luddites or something.

Good day to you.

> You would've had to have spent quite a lot fo time just writing up the requirements that it would've been as easy to do some other way.

I have to do that with human team members as well. People have to either listen or read what has to be done. Like said; it's the same brief I gave human programmers that it had as input.

Edit: not to mention, I have to spend far less on that as well; chatgpt generates better, well written briefs from a few words, including pseudo code, boilterplate + failing tests that should succeed when done and possible directions to attack a problem. It helps human programmers understand hard problems better and solve them faster.

> It's something I could do with swagger in 5 minutes as well, you don't need an AI to generate boilerplate code.

It doesn't just generate boilerplate code, it generates everything. Functional code including all logic, database interactions, api interactions, transformations + tests.

> ,know what the job entails or is worth?

You seem to be triggered, why?

Being rusty at a programming language/framework has zero to do with what it entails or is worth; it will be more or less the same in other languages/frameworks I'm not rusty at. Rusty here means; I forgot some of the language/framework functions to do things (like, make a database model in this particular ORM); that doesn't, in any way, make it difficult to estimate the work.

Not only that; I said others (as in 3rdparty) estimated it from $1500-$3500, not me. I estimated it to far less, even being rusty. But not to as little as I got it done with chatgpt.

> I mean you have clients, and you're pasting code from ChatGPT into source control and people are paying you for this?

Yes, and I tell them how it's done. They don't care how it's done, as long as it's done. This particular client asked me last week how to invest in AI products because of what I showed them (I sent them a PDF with the prompts and responses for doing that particular micro service).

But each their own... My team gained super powers with this (and with copilot as well); if it doesn't work for you, that's fine. In my experience, it's already better than most people I ever worked with (that's probably the client base I work with ; large corps).

I only pasted a snippet of the conversation. Before my initial query I asked chatGPT directly this:

   Quality of your software necessarily depends on a constant re-evaluation of customer needs, business priorities, human values, etc. Lots of squishy stuff. How would you handle customers in this case. Can you provide an example?

And then after it responded then I queried it again for more detailed examples. I didn't post the initial query or the initial answer because it would just make everything too long. You're likely asking it a different and more general question.

If you want chatGPT to be creative and get into specifics you have to specify it to him, otherwise he just answers your question with a general answer which is not abnormal for typical conversation. Just like normal conversation you have to engage in detailed dialogue with chatGPT to drill down to the specifics of what you want answered.

>That's an absolutely massive claim but I think it's a false one.

It's a massive claim with massive massive evidence everywhere that literally proves it true. There are tons and tons of examples of chatGPT being highly creative. Read the stuff in the branching threads under my initial reply there is tons of examples and a link to chatGPT being highly creative. It is DEFINITIVE evidence.

>I wouldn't consider a developers job to do video processing tasks, or object detection, not what I expect a developer to handle natural language processing tasks such as identifying sentiment, would you? In fact I couldn't really imagine a more generic attempt at a response to that question?

I work with developers who do ML. I myself do video processing and object detection as a developer. You must be in web. I'm in embedded systems with vision. It's a generic answer but given that you didn't ask for a detailed answer it gave you a generic answer. Like a human it won't go into nuance until you ask them about nuance.

>This is not to knock the system, but depending on the "seed" you might get something brilliant or silly, I think there's a major difference there to your claim that's it's "genuinely" creative. Genuinely creative would imply that 100% of the time, I get something new and relevant. Which isn't what happens for me.

This is wrong. Are humans creative 100% of the time? If a human gives me one answer to a question that isn't creative is that human suddenly not creative? If you ask a generic question it will give you a generic answer.

>It's for sure impressive, but I feel the more "creative" I asked it to be (more entropy I inject), the more likely it will come up with incorrect answers; However, I'll concede that "incorrect" answer could be used for some inspirational new ways of thinking about solving problems.

I see what you're saying here. You "feel" that the more entropy you inject the more incorrect answer it will come up with. Don't go off "feeling". Try it.

I already took your question and replaced the customers with hulk. I can add in Wednesday Adams as one of the developers. I can take this entire question and turn it on it's head to ask what if the client asked me to write a program to destroy the universe. You can take this thing all the way to destroying the universe and into the new universe that comes after it. chatGPT is game and will follow you.

Look I posted this in a branching thread I'll post it here because it's literally unequivocal evidence: https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ read it till the end because the ending is creative inception.

There is no way chatGPT was trained specifically on any of the above. Yet it knows how to imagine all of that.

>Where I think we're going wrong with AI is we seem to think that it will be a "perfect brain". When really nothing is perfect, especially the data it's being trained on.

No it won't be perfect. But neither are you. I think what AI can be, is it can be as good if not better than you. Being better than human doesn't mean it's right on everything. It will get things wrong sometimes, but I believe in the near future it will get things wrong less times then a human.

> you're the first person I know of who has actually been replaced by an AI (although you don't know it yet)

I think there are many; I know I will be, and always known that (my father always told me from when I saw my first computer begin 80s that it will happen some day; as in the 70s/80s they believed it was imminent). I studied AI in the 90s AI winter and didn't think we would get here in my life because of the bleak outlook back then.

I will be replaced as a programmer quite quickly (although there is a lot it cannot do; in the embedded space, it performs horribly for instance; it also cannot find solutions to actual complex problems; most of everyone here is not doing any of that though), but not as a product manager or tech lead. That will eventually happen as well.

> In fact, it sounds like you're being disingenuous charging them for work when in fact they could just be paying OpenAI? What value are you adding ?

Like most clients, they don't know what they want, at all. They have a vague idea and that needs to be translated into a working product. And scale. And be maintainable. Etc etc. That AI cannot do (yet). It'll come, but to code something like 'we want to make a sort of crm mixed with support mixed with uber for outbound sales' and then knowing what to ask and getting that far enough to get to a product that works and adds value is still far off. This thread and article is about coding and I believe that is, for a large part of what people are doing daily now, done.