3 ms·

I noticed some weird things with its code writing. A lot of the time the text is spot on, but the code doesn't actually do what the text says. And sometimes the

by ksaj 4y ago

I noticed some weird things with its code writing. A lot of the time the text is spot on, but the code doesn't actually do what the text says. And sometimes the input examples are totally wrong, even when the function does exactly what you asked. It gets even weirder when you start asking it to make corrections. By the same token, its Lisp functions sometimes are really good. But you still have to review it, and might also need to fix the input example to fit what you actually expected it to be. It can make some really weird but connected responses. I asked 'what is 'umop apisdn' and it responded by telling me it's a palindrome, and then failed spelling it backward to demonstrate why it is one. I corrected it by saying "umop apisdn is "upside down" upside down." and it said "I see!" and then went on about some other really unrelated things, still about palindromes. So it's not perfect for sure. It's really entertaining though.

autotune 4y ago
I tried getting it to output some Go with basically little knowledge of it myself. Let's just say software developers who actually know what they are doing are not going anywhere any time soon.
- ksaj 4y ago
  It does parts of the code really well, I noticed. It's usually toward the end that it starts messing up, and especially the inputs are bad. The descriptive text is nearly always spot on, which makes the code errors a bit wonky. I have a feeling it's because sometimes documents show the code first before describing it, and some do it the other way around, so sometimes it is actually modelling the wrong thing. Plus: I asked it to make an obfuscated Lisp function to write Hello World, and it did a reasonable job. Then I said "Make a better one" and it made some seriously spaghetti code that still wrote Hello World properly, and explained why it was obfuscated. I wouldn't really call it obfuscate, but it was really messy and bizarre as I had hoped. Minus: I asked it to make a guitar tab for an Em7 chord. It showed an Em chord, although the description was exactly correct. So I said "The D string should be open to make it a 7th chord" and it showed it again with the D string not even voiced... which would still be an Em! (Yea, it can do guitar tabs, too!)

by ksaj 4y ago

autotune 4y ago

I tried getting it to output some Go with basically little knowledge of it myself. Let's just say software developers who actually know what they are doing are not going anywhere any time soon.

ksaj 4y ago
It does parts of the code really well, I noticed. It's usually toward the end that it starts messing up, and especially the inputs are bad. The descriptive text is nearly always spot on, which makes the code errors a bit wonky. I have a feeling it's because sometimes documents show the code first before describing it, and some do it the other way around, so sometimes it is actually modelling the wrong thing. Plus: I asked it to make an obfuscated Lisp function to write Hello World, and it did a reasonable job. Then I said "Make a better one" and it made some seriously spaghetti code that still wrote Hello World properly, and explained why it was obfuscated. I wouldn't really call it obfuscate, but it was really messy and bizarre as I had hoped. Minus: I asked it to make a guitar tab for an Em7 chord. It showed an Em chord, although the description was exactly correct. So I said "The D string should be open to make it a 7th chord" and it showed it again with the D string not even voiced... which would still be an Em! (Yea, it can do guitar tabs, too!)