I use github copilot. It really is just fancy autocomplete. It's often useful and is indeed impressive. But it's not revolutionary.

I've also played with ChatGPT and tried to use it to help me code but never successfully. The reality is I only try it if google has failed me, and then it usually makes up something that sounds right but is in fact completely wrong. Probably because it's been trained on the same insufficient data I've been looking at.

It's me. I'm over half of all tech industry workers.

As with all tech; it depends. It's another tool in my toolbox and a useful one at that. Will it replace me in my job? Not anytime soon. However, it will make me more proficient at my job and my 30+ years of experience will keep its bad ideas out of production. If my bosses decide tomorrow that I can be replaced with AI in the current state, they deserve what they have coming. That said, they are willing to pay for additional tooling provided me with multiple AI engines and I can't be more thrilled. I'd rather give AI a simple task to do the busy work than work with overseas developers that get it wrong time and time again and take a week to iterate while asking how for loops work in Python.

it's very good sometimes and very stupid other times, and you have to know enough about the subject to distinguish it

I work in an AI company. 99% of our tech relies on tried and true standard computer vision solutions instead of machine-learning based. It's just that unreliable when production use requires pixel precision.

We might throw a gradient descent here or there, but not for any learning ops.

I asked chatGPT to generate a list of 5 random words, and then tell me the fourth word from the bottom. It kept telling me the third. I corrected it, and it gave me the right word. I asked it again, and it made the same error. It does amazing things while failing comically at simple tasks. There is a lot of procedural code added to plug the leaks. Doesn't mean it's overrated, but when something is hyped hard enough as being able to replace human expertise, any crack in the system becomes ammunition for dismissal. I see it more as a revolutionary technology going through evolutionary growing pains. I think it's actually underrated in its future potential and worrisome in the fact that its processing is essentially a black box that can't be understood at the same level as traditional coding. You can't debug it or trace the exact procedure that needs patching.

Overrated? Compared to what AGI that does not exist yet? Overhyped though? Absolutely.

We went from very little AI content making its way to your eyeballs and ears, to it occurring daily if not during your very session here today. So many thumbnails and writeups have used AI that to say it is overrated it a bit absurd unless you were expecting it to be be AGI, then yes the AI today is overrated, but it does not matter as you are consuming it still.

Well, it depends on your bubble I guess. But personally I'd say it's underrated and overrated at the same time, but mostly underrated.

It depends on your expectations and way of usage in your toolbox I'd say. It keeps surprising me weekly how fast progress is. But we get used to it perhaps.

The best use I've found for AI is getting it to write me covering letters for job applications. Even then I still need to make a few small adjustments. But it saves a bit of time and typing effort.

Other than that, I just have fun with it making stupid images and funny stories based on inside jokes.

That is a terrible graph. There's no y axis, there's no indication of what the scale is, and I don't know how many people they asked or who these people were or what tech company they worked in.

Just over 23% believe it is rated fairly, while a quarter of respondents were presumably proponents of the tech as they said it was underrated. However, 51.6% of people said it was overrated.

That sentence is a fantastic demonstration of how bad this article is. The article says that a quarter say the technology is underrated, but it looks more like half to me. Not that it matters because, as I said the scale is useless. Also they are lumping 51.6% I don't know how they came up with that number because again we don't know what the total was, just that it was more than 1,500. You can't calculate a percentage without knowing the total.

The graph has 11 options so were they rating it on a scale of between 1 and 11. What's that?

It's not overrated.

Using the "Mistral instruct" model to select your food in the canteen works like a charm.

Just provide it with the daily option, tell it to select one main-, side dish and a dessert and explain the selection. Never let me down. Consistently selects the healthier option that still tastes good.