4 ms·

I keep hearing this assertion, that GPT can be wrong, therefore it’s an unworkable technology. But it’s a bad comparison. LLMs aren’t trying to be computational

I keep hearing this assertion, that GPT can be wrong, therefore it’s an unworkable technology. But it’s a bad comparison. LLMs aren’t trying to be computationally correct like a calculator or something, the value is in their ability to semantically process a question. The other issue is assuming that the existing way of doing things is always correct. Engineers frequently get things wrong. If an AI model can complete a task with 95% correctness but let’s say a Jr. Engineer can compete the same task with 85% correctness then it makes sense to use the model instead. I’m not sure why folks can’t see the obvious conclusion of where this is heading.

groestl 4y ago
> then it makes sense to use the model instead Especially since a Sr. Engineer (possible with Jr.'s input) using an AI for debugging, might be 99.9% correct _and_ faster.
kenjackson 4y ago
And even if the AI model is only 75% correct, if it can generate the output near instantly and give that as a starting point, that's great. There's a reason why templates, wizards, and samples are so popular -- after servicing of code, the hardest part is probably getting started with it.
- etothepii 4y ago
  This is a fair. However, all our skills and skills at picking people with skills were trained on the set of people that make are surprisingly good at knowing what they don't know.
krainboltgreene 4y ago
> If an AI model can complete a task with 95% correctness but let’s say a Jr. Engineer can compete the same task with 85% correctness then it makes sense to use the model instead. I’m not sure why folks can’t see the obvious conclusion of where this is heading. Because this is incredibly shortsighted and also fundamentally misunderstands the return data of an LLM.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Plus you need to see ChatGPT fail. When it fails, it will keep actively trying to persuade you it's right rather than fix problems. It does this through 2 deceptive techniques, which no doubt work on many people: 1) it suggests it was right all along, very politely pressuring you to accept it. It does not really make arguments for why it's right. It just pushes you to accept it's output. (if a human does this, I would argue this is a human trying to hide the fact they made a mistake, or perhaps hiding they don't know. Not an honest mistake. Either way, VERY bad sign) 2) (and/or) it will suggest and make changes that don't address the concern. In a way this is the same as 1), but ... Using ChatGPT for anything remotely important runs a very, very big risk of causing disasters imho. For a template, basic inspiration, perhaps ... but ... Let's put it this way. If you gave control of a nuclear plant to ChatGPT, it would make you feel good about this, then melt the plant down. ChatGPT is incredibly impressive. But it's a con man. Hell, it's a better con artist than a lot of human con men, but it's fundamentally trying to convince you, not caring if it's right or wrong. It's a "troll". An incredibly good troll. But it's not trying to solve problems. Extremely impressive achievement, no question, but using it for anything more than inspiration ... But I think if this thing is deployed widely it will crash and burn. It will rapidly get a reputation for leading people to disaster and that will be the end of it.
rco8786 4y ago
> I keep hearing this assertion, that GPT can be wrong, therefore it’s an unworkable technology. This is a straw man, I did not say any such thing. I am just pointing out the limitations that people like the author of this article seem to be blissfully unaware of. Also I would argue that your premise of AI vs a Jr eng is pretty bad. Junior engineers are not writing things to 85% correctness. If they are, they should be let go basically immediately. That's a 15% error rate. I would posit that even the worst human programmers have error rates well below 1% for code that actually ships.
- ProllyInfamous 4y ago
  >...even the worst human programmers have error rates well below 1% FOR CODE THAT ACTUALLY SHIPS. I added that emphasis, and you should realize that shipping code is the result of teams, and engagement like ChatGPT is demonstrating will replace most of your fellow human teammembers, and the only human input may be "putting it all together..." this is a top-level jobtask, with limited employment opportunity; I worry that the code that I am already able to generate and have real results with (as a non-programmer technician) is quite scary. It is sufficient. Simply put: the UX/UI here is too addictive and too capable to not be earth-shattering. But this is just an amateur opinion, and certainly "creativity" is already (and already was) an "INhuman" attribute, limited but to the rarest minds...
  - jostiniane 4y ago
    I have 3 main clients now: 1. project with large code bases that I maintain, the configs alone are of the scale of 20k lines of yaml files 2. Prototyping client with smaller code bases and varying requests for projects needing to be adapted for their clients 3. Implementing research results of a research institute In all what I have/saw, I still don't see a single use case for GPT assisted programming. Even for snippets, I have a large repository of lua snippets for neovim and coockicutter templates that I built throughout the years.
    - ProllyInfamous 4y ago
      You are an extremely sophisticated and well-trained crafts-person, obviously. Now: IMAGINE ACCOMPLISHING THAT without ever having had been able to hold an "entry level position" at whichever creative-houses / apprenticeships helped in your current sophistry. YES: If you are "top tier" educated and know how to communicate with these GPT systems... you can replace (e.g. as a lawyer) your entire law clerk staff, save one fast typist that is also a good question asker. I have found in my previous six weeks of Prompt Crafting that it has helped me in so many areas of my life BEYOND TECHNICAL. For whatever-odd reason, of the smartest people I know, it's the most-technical that seem to have a problem with the rapid changing world of not needing 50% of your labor force for routine entry-level (and probably mid-level, too) for any job that currently just requires you to sit in front of a computer screen and not have any executive authority (literally, every single one of those jobs isn't "GONE," it's just that all the stuff that you currently pay younger people to do/learn-on-the-job... you don't need these people (correction: nearly as many of them) to chew through datasets. I am around 40, and have two lawyer brothers, and what they were able to accomplish in lawschool pales in comparison with what many ChatGPT systems I've seen and used and benefited from (again: outside of technical areas of expertise; OF COURSE IT GETS WRONG, so do humans; it is learning to ask better questions literally by the thousands... every second of every day. The elitist mentality of "OH BUT MY JOB IS SECURE" is so silly, because what do you do when nobody is able to support themselves / help you. I often ask my clients: if Reagan's policies were `so good`, then how come it's `so hard to find good help`? This is a good question for which I have yet to ask AI, but it is a good one and probably not answerable in even just a few paragraphs. Have a great day; be grateful for what you have; know that your social security (if in US) will be non-existant (for real, this time IS different) because it is already so out-of-whack that the massive unemployment issues WILL affect your life. The previous few tens-of-thousands that a few FAANGs disposed of, pre-Christmas... is just the beginning folks! Have a great workweek =P
ProllyInfamous 4y ago
>I’m not sure why folks can’t see the obvious conclusion of where this is heading. Denial > Anger > [stages of grief] "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight... "and then, you win." —M.Gandhi

groestl 4y ago

> then it makes sense to use the model instead Especially since a Sr. Engineer (possible with Jr.'s input) using an AI for debugging, might be 99.9% correct _and_ faster.

kenjackson 4y ago

And even if the AI model is only 75% correct, if it can generate the output near instantly and give that as a starting point, that's great. There's a reason why templates, wizards, and samples are so popular -- after servicing of code, the hardest part is probably getting started with it.

etothepii 4y ago
This is a fair. However, all our skills and skills at picking people with skills were trained on the set of people that make are surprisingly good at knowing what they don't know.

krainboltgreene 4y ago

> If an AI model can complete a task with 95% correctness but let’s say a Jr. Engineer can compete the same task with 85% correctness then it makes sense to use the model instead. I’m not sure why folks can’t see the obvious conclusion of where this is heading. Because this is incredibly shortsighted and also fundamentally misunderstands the return data of an LLM.

candiodari 4y ago
Plus you need to see ChatGPT fail. When it fails, it will keep actively trying to persuade you it's right rather than fix problems. It does this through 2 deceptive techniques, which no doubt work on many people: 1) it suggests it was right all along, very politely pressuring you to accept it. It does not really make arguments for why it's right. It just pushes you to accept it's output. (if a human does this, I would argue this is a human trying to hide the fact they made a mistake, or perhaps hiding they don't know. Not an honest mistake. Either way, VERY bad sign) 2) (and/or) it will suggest and make changes that don't address the concern. In a way this is the same as 1), but ... Using ChatGPT for anything remotely important runs a very, very big risk of causing disasters imho. For a template, basic inspiration, perhaps ... but ... Let's put it this way. If you gave control of a nuclear plant to ChatGPT, it would make you feel good about this, then melt the plant down. ChatGPT is incredibly impressive. But it's a con man. Hell, it's a better con artist than a lot of human con men, but it's fundamentally trying to convince you, not caring if it's right or wrong. It's a "troll". An incredibly good troll. But it's not trying to solve problems. Extremely impressive achievement, no question, but using it for anything more than inspiration ... But I think if this thing is deployed widely it will crash and burn. It will rapidly get a reputation for leading people to disaster and that will be the end of it.

rco8786 4y ago

> I keep hearing this assertion, that GPT can be wrong, therefore it’s an unworkable technology. This is a straw man, I did not say any such thing. I am just pointing out the limitations that people like the author of this article seem to be blissfully unaware of. Also I would argue that your premise of AI vs a Jr eng is pretty bad. Junior engineers are not writing things to 85% correctness. If they are, they should be let go basically immediately. That's a 15% error rate. I would posit that even the worst human programmers have error rates well below 1% for code that actually ships.

ProllyInfamous 4y ago
>...even the worst human programmers have error rates well below 1% FOR CODE THAT ACTUALLY SHIPS. I added that emphasis, and you should realize that shipping code is the result of teams, and engagement like ChatGPT is demonstrating will replace most of your fellow human teammembers, and the only human input may be "putting it all together..." this is a top-level jobtask, with limited employment opportunity; I worry that the code that I am already able to generate and have real results with (as a non-programmer technician) is quite scary. It is sufficient. Simply put: the UX/UI here is too addictive and too capable to not be earth-shattering. But this is just an amateur opinion, and certainly "creativity" is already (and already was) an "INhuman" attribute, limited but to the rarest minds...
- jostiniane 4y ago
  I have 3 main clients now: 1. project with large code bases that I maintain, the configs alone are of the scale of 20k lines of yaml files 2. Prototyping client with smaller code bases and varying requests for projects needing to be adapted for their clients 3. Implementing research results of a research institute In all what I have/saw, I still don't see a single use case for GPT assisted programming. Even for snippets, I have a large repository of lua snippets for neovim and coockicutter templates that I built throughout the years.
  - ProllyInfamous 4y ago
    You are an extremely sophisticated and well-trained crafts-person, obviously. Now: IMAGINE ACCOMPLISHING THAT without ever having had been able to hold an "entry level position" at whichever creative-houses / apprenticeships helped in your current sophistry. YES: If you are "top tier" educated and know how to communicate with these GPT systems... you can replace (e.g. as a lawyer) your entire law clerk staff, save one fast typist that is also a good question asker. I have found in my previous six weeks of Prompt Crafting that it has helped me in so many areas of my life BEYOND TECHNICAL. For whatever-odd reason, of the smartest people I know, it's the most-technical that seem to have a problem with the rapid changing world of not needing 50% of your labor force for routine entry-level (and probably mid-level, too) for any job that currently just requires you to sit in front of a computer screen and not have any executive authority (literally, every single one of those jobs isn't "GONE," it's just that all the stuff that you currently pay younger people to do/learn-on-the-job... you don't need these people (correction: nearly as many of them) to chew through datasets. I am around 40, and have two lawyer brothers, and what they were able to accomplish in lawschool pales in comparison with what many ChatGPT systems I've seen and used and benefited from (again: outside of technical areas of expertise; OF COURSE IT GETS WRONG, so do humans; it is learning to ask better questions literally by the thousands... every second of every day. The elitist mentality of "OH BUT MY JOB IS SECURE" is so silly, because what do you do when nobody is able to support themselves / help you. I often ask my clients: if Reagan's policies were `so good`, then how come it's `so hard to find good help`? This is a good question for which I have yet to ask AI, but it is a good one and probably not answerable in even just a few paragraphs. Have a great day; be grateful for what you have; know that your social security (if in US) will be non-existant (for real, this time IS different) because it is already so out-of-whack that the massive unemployment issues WILL affect your life. The previous few tens-of-thousands that a few FAANGs disposed of, pre-Christmas... is just the beginning folks! Have a great workweek =P

ProllyInfamous 4y ago

>I’m not sure why folks can’t see the obvious conclusion of where this is heading. Denial > Anger > [stages of grief] "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight... "and then, you win." —M.Gandhi