5 ms·

Someone had asked ChatGPT to produce working code in three languages. The results seemed impressive https://www.reddit.com/user/francisco/comments/1044amy/chat

by npalli 4y ago

Someone had asked ChatGPT to produce working code in three languages. The results seemed impressive https://www.reddit.com/user/francisco/comments/1044amy/chatgpt_can_write_the_code_its_based_on_in_python/ https://www.reddit.com/user/francisco/comments/1044amy/chatg... Until someone pointed out that simple things like the function torch.integrate_odeint doesn't exist (and other issues with the Julia codes as well) and it is not clear what the generated code is going to do even if you fix this. For now, the generated code is great at fooling non-technical VC's into thinking some deep intelligence is going on so they can now pivot from Crypto/Web3 grift into generative AI.

jonnybgood 4y ago
I learned Brainfuck in ChatGPT. I asked it to write some code in Brainfuck and it explained the code to me. Whatever code ChatGPT gives me, it needs to be able to explain it before I take it seriously.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  And now you have an instructor who sometimes lies to you.
  - brookst 4y ago
    YMMV but many of my human professors were sometimes wrong.
lisper 4y ago
ChatGPT is basically just Eliza on steroids.
- brookst 4y ago
  Not really. Eliza didn’t come with baked-in knowledge, or the ability to associate concepts. If ChatGPT is Eliza on steroids, string theory is creationism on steroids.
Nihilartikel 4y ago
I ran into the same thing when I tried to have chatgpt boilerplate an Apache airflow operator that sends a message to an MS teams channel on failure. It hallucinated the existence of a plausible but non existent built in teams integration module. I asked for a github link to the source and it gave one that was a 404, but was colocated with other MS related modules. It will be interesting when the language my models become more aware of what they know vs what is inferred to exist..
- JamesonNetworks 4y ago
  Maybe it already wrote the code for itself and humanity just hasn’t caught up
Kiro 4y ago
Are you seriously comparing something that has provided zero utility (web3) to something that has already proved its worth many times over? Copilot has completely transformed the way I write code to the point where there's a before and after. Nowadays I can't imagine working without an AI assisted tool. For me, it's already revolutionary.
zamadatix 4y ago
For obvious errors (i.e. you get an error thrown) if you feed back the error to the session it's surprisingly good at keeping enough context to then fix the error. E.g. maybe in that specific example it needed to import some library or got confused which libraries are available where and mangled it up so it won't run but if you tell it that happened when you ran it it'll fix just that issue in a rewritten output. I was pretty impressed with what it could "fix" of this type of error in some JS code I was asking it to make. Overall this isn't much worse than a person trying to one shot a code example so I can live with this part fine. The danger is in the non-obvious errors like semantics ones you don't have intuition or test cases for because you got a block of code given to you. A good example of something that tends to break down quickly is asking it to generate long or complex regular expression matches. They are almost always valid regex but there comes a certain point where it goes from "this is the perfect regex for the question!" to "this regex works 99% of the time and unless you spent about as much time looking it over as you would just making it to have the same understanding you'll not know until it bites you" to "this regex is obviously not going to work" very quickly. This part is much harder to live with, it requires you stick to smaller snippets and integrating them which can be helpful sometimes but obviously isn't the end goal.

by npalli 4y ago

jonnybgood 4y ago

I learned Brainfuck in ChatGPT. I asked it to write some code in Brainfuck and it explained the code to me. Whatever code ChatGPT gives me, it needs to be able to explain it before I take it seriously.

dsr_ 4y ago
And now you have an instructor who sometimes lies to you.
- brookst 4y ago
  YMMV but many of my human professors were sometimes wrong.

lisper 4y ago

ChatGPT is basically just Eliza on steroids.

brookst 4y ago
Not really. Eliza didn’t come with baked-in knowledge, or the ability to associate concepts. If ChatGPT is Eliza on steroids, string theory is creationism on steroids.

Nihilartikel 4y ago

I ran into the same thing when I tried to have chatgpt boilerplate an Apache airflow operator that sends a message to an MS teams channel on failure. It hallucinated the existence of a plausible but non existent built in teams integration module. I asked for a github link to the source and it gave one that was a 404, but was colocated with other MS related modules. It will be interesting when the language my models become more aware of what they know vs what is inferred to exist..

JamesonNetworks 4y ago
Maybe it already wrote the code for itself and humanity just hasn’t caught up

Kiro 4y ago

Are you seriously comparing something that has provided zero utility (web3) to something that has already proved its worth many times over? Copilot has completely transformed the way I write code to the point where there's a before and after. Nowadays I can't imagine working without an AI assisted tool. For me, it's already revolutionary.

zamadatix 4y ago

For obvious errors (i.e. you get an error thrown) if you feed back the error to the session it's surprisingly good at keeping enough context to then fix the error. E.g. maybe in that specific example it needed to import some library or got confused which libraries are available where and mangled it up so it won't run but if you tell it that happened when you ran it it'll fix just that issue in a rewritten output. I was pretty impressed with what it could "fix" of this type of error in some JS code I was asking it to make. Overall this isn't much worse than a person trying to one shot a code example so I can live with this part fine. The danger is in the non-obvious errors like semantics ones you don't have intuition or test cases for because you got a block of code given to you. A good example of something that tends to break down quickly is asking it to generate long or complex regular expression matches. They are almost always valid regex but there comes a certain point where it goes from "this is the perfect regex for the question!" to "this regex works 99% of the time and unless you spent about as much time looking it over as you would just making it to have the same understanding you'll not know until it bites you" to "this regex is obviously not going to work" very quickly. This part is much harder to live with, it requires you stick to smaller snippets and integrating them which can be helpful sometimes but obviously isn't the end goal.