671–680 of 1001 posts
I have a simple front-end test that I give to junior devs. Every few months I see if ChatGPT can pass it. It hasn’t. It can’t. It isn’t even close. It answers questions confidently but with subtle inaccuracies. The code that it produces is the same kind of non-sense that you get from recent bootcamp devs who’ve “mastered” the 50 technologies on their eight page résumé. If it’s gotten better, I haven’t noticed. Self-d…
I have a simple front-end test that I give to junior devs. Every few months I see if ChatGPT can pass it. It hasn’t. It can’t. It isn’t even close. It answers questions confidently but with subtle inaccuracies. The code that it produces is the same kind of non-sense that you get from recent bootcamp devs who’ve “mastered” the 50 technologies on their eight page résumé. If it’s gotten better, I haven’t noticed. Self-d…
I was on a team developing a critical public safety system on a tight deadline a few years ago, and i had to translate some wireframes for the admin back-end into CSS. I did a passable job but it wasn’t a perfect match. I was asked to redo it by the team-lead. It had zero business value, but such was the state of our team…being pixel perfect was a source of pride. It was one of the incidents that made me to stop fron…
They can't, and aren't even trying to. It's OpenAI that's competing with the specialists. If the specialists go out of business, the middling generalists obviously aren't going to survive either so in the long term it is not in the interest of the "middling generalists" to use ChatGPT for code generation. What is in their interest is to become expert specialists and write better code both than ChatGPT currently can, and than "middling generalists". That's how you compete with specialists, by becoming a specialist yourself.
Speaking as a specialist occupying a very, very er special niche, at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I recently asked ChatGPT to produce similar CSS and it did so flawlessly. I use ChatGPT every day for many tasks in my work and find it very helpful, but I simply do not believe this. > The article points this out: middling generalists can now compete with specialists. I'd say it might allow novices to compete with middling generalists, but even that is a stretch. On the contrary, ChatGPT is actually best suited to…
That's about my experience. The worst dev on my team uses ChatGPT a lot, and its facilitated him producing more bad code more quickly. I'm not sure it's a win for anyone, and he's still unlikely to be with the team in a year. It allows a dev who doesn't care about their craft or improving to generate code without learning anything. The code they generate today or a year from today is the same quality. Part of it is t…
So overall it's more an amplifier than anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t think the technology will improve at all in the next ~16 years? It will just be stuck at it being able to write simple scripts even in 2040? I fully expect human programming to be completely obsolete by then.
> will improve at all in the next ~16 years? Improve "at all?" Well, of course it will, but you're just moving the goalposts here. I'm telling you I don't think it's going to be anywhere near the level of AGI that can solve most programming tasks with less effort an energy cost than a human in that time. > It will just be stuck at it being able to write simple scripts even in 2040? Pretty much. You can improve the te…
GPT4’s capabilities are quite close to a human’s even now, especially when asking it about areas that I haven’t specialized in. And now it has vision capability, it can see what it is doing.
With twice the time remaining that has elapsed, clearly there’s plentiful time for its capabilities to increase and for it to get faster and cheaper. And it will not be a linear improvement but an exponential one.
I don’t want programmers to become obsolete. I just consider the likelihood that we have anything to offer over one of these agents in the medium term to be very unlikely. Why would you want to spend $100,000s on a human if you can get something in less time from an AI for $1000s? Human programmers will be attacked on three fronts: price, quality and time. The quality aspect is the only one that is arguable: price and time are already lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “ If AI makes developers twice as productive (maybe a few years down the road with GPT-6), will this additional supply of developer capacity get absorbed by existing and new demand? Or will there be half as many developers? Or will the same number of developers get paid far less than today? ” Something to remember is that every new innovation in software development only raises the expectations of the people paying…
I agree that demand will very likely grow with expectations to absorb some of the additional capacity. But there is a limit to that because companies compete on more than just software. They also compete on price and on other things that have nothing to do with software. If the price of software drops, it's not a given that all of the savings will be spent more and better software.
This also means larger companies will need to build more to defend their share of the market. Meaning more people building software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I said, you are still responsible for the quality control. You are supposed to notice that everyone is named Dave and tell ChatGPT to fix it. Write tests, read code, run & observe for odd behaviours. It's not an autonomous agent just yet.
But why should i waste time using a broken product when i can do it properly myself? To me a lot of this debate sounds like people obsessively promoting a product for some odd reason, as if they were the happy owners of a hammer in search of a nail.
Most people are not geniuses and polymaths, it's much easier and cheaper for me to design the architecture and ask ChatGPT to generate the code in many different languages(Swift/HTML/JS/CSS on the client side and Py, JS, PHP on the server side). It's easier because although I'm proficient an all these it's very hard for me to switch solving client specific JS problems to server specific JS problems or between graphics and animation related problems and data processing problems with Swift. It's also cheaper because I don't have to pay someone to do it for me.
In my case, I know all that well enough to spot a problem and debug, I just don't want to go through the trouble of actually writing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's about my experience. The worst dev on my team uses ChatGPT a lot, and its facilitated him producing more bad code more quickly. I'm not sure it's a win for anyone, and he's still unlikely to be with the team in a year. It allows a dev who doesn't care about their craft or improving to generate code without learning anything. The code they generate today or a year from today is the same quality. Part of it is t…
On the flip side, one can use ChatGPT as only a starting point and to learn from there. One isn't stuck with actually using what it outputs verbtim, and really shouldn't until at least a hypothetical GPT-6 or 7... and to use it fully now, one has to know how to nudge it when it goes into a bad direction. So overall it's more an amplifier than anything else.
Overall it would be an amplifier if that were how the majority used it. Sadly I don't believe that to be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some parts of AI will necessarily asymptote to human-level intelligence because of a fixed corpus of training data. It's hard to think AI will become a better creative writer than the best human creative writers, because the AI is trained on their output and you can't go much further than that. But in areas where there's self-play (e.g. Chess, and to a lesser extent, programming), there is no good reason to think it'…
So you think human readers have magical powers to rate say a book that an AI can't replicate?
It’s great and amazing tech, but it’s very much a kind of search engine, and indeed, writes just the kind of code you find on the internet… sometimes great, often flawed, very often incomplete. Its breadth of knowledge is stunning, but it’s not like it’s actually useful to be able to write code in all the languages.
It really doesn’t even touch harder problems. You need to know, at the level of fine details often, what you want from it and what you don’t. That’s hard.
…It save’s time. We will perhaps need fewer programmers as people spend less time on grunt work. But that’s hardly the end of coding, and seems like clearly a good thing in the long run.