3 ms·
My answer was mildly tongue in cheek, and I see where you’re going. On the other hand, one of the other posters asked “to generate a parallax effect in Qt/QML.
by gattilorenz 4y ago
My answer was mildly tongue in cheek, and I see where you’re going.
On the other hand, one of the other posters asked “to generate a parallax effect in Qt/QML. It simply used a QML Elemened with the name Parallax”. Is this an insight, or is this answering “yes, I could” to “could you pass me the salt?”. Maybe the line between the two is a fine one, and I didn’t realize that yet.
In general, it feels like copying part of the question (“write parallax code”) in the answer is the easy part of the task…
- alpos 4y agoSaw that, and yea, that's totally a fall-back cop-out type answer. I was pretty much just questioning everyone dismissing the whole category of answers like the R script one. To me there does seem to be some nuance to here that's worth noticing. Some examples of this type of response are indeed too cheap and can be chalked up to lack of training data or something. But in other cases it's actually not immediately obvious whether the answer the user got was their fault for not specifying that they are expecting code that works without additional supporting libraries. A language model can't reasonably be expected to understand an expectation of usability or fitness for purpose in a context the user didn't specify.
- gattilorenz 4y agoYes, indeed there are some extra nuances that should not be automatically dismissed. > A language model can't reasonably be expected to understand an expectation of usability or fitness for purpose in a context the user didn't specify. I agree, but I think we’re at the same time expecting the LM to “understand” a lot more