Had a presentation where they told us they were going to show us how AI can automate project creation. In the demo, after several attempts at using different prompts, failing and trying to fix it manually, they gave up.
I don't think it's entirely useless as it is, it's just that people have created a hammer they know gives something useful and have stuck it with iterative improvements that have a lot compensation beneath the engine. It's artificial because it is being developed to artificially fulfill prompts, which they do succeed at.
When people do develop true intelligence-on-demand, you'll know because you will lose your job, not simply have another tool at your disposal. The prompts and flow of conversations people pay to submit to the training is really helping advance the research into their replacements.
i use it to write simple boilerplate for myself, and it works most of the time. does it count?
as a shitty thing you do? yeh
I use gpt to give me snippets of code (not in my ide, I use neovim btw), check my stuff for typos/logical errors, suggest solutions to some problems, debugging, and honestly I kinda love it. I was learning programming on my own in 2010s, and this is so much better than crawling over wikis/stackoverflow. At least for me, now, when I already have an intuition for what is a good code.
Anyone who says llm will replace programmers in 1-2 years is either stupid or a grifter.
It's so bad at coding... Like, it's not even funny.
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community