18 ms·
Hmmm... I'm surprised I'm not seeing anyone else question the validity of this taking "2 hours" Given that it's written on the blog for the product it's using,
by mtc010170 4y ago
Hmmm... I'm surprised I'm not seeing anyone else question the validity of this taking "2 hours" Given that it's written on the blog for the product it's using, this reads to me a lot like a pure sales pitch. They want us to believe if you use Patterns (which is neat), your company will be much more cost-effective.
I'm not saying that's bad - that's probably the right thing to do with their company blog, and it's cool nonetheless. But I do get a little tired of people putting stuff out there like this that warps (some peoples) perception around how long things actually take. We wonder why, as an industry, we misjudge timelines on things left and right.
Even if we take it at face value, this is a person who's intimately familiar with this product. So sure, it's easy to set things up when we've done it a bunch of times. If you were doing this, solving the novel problem that you're faced with, is that how long it would take? Plus that's not really what most of us get paid to do. We have to learn on the fly and figure stuff out as it comes.
So rather than have the provocative headline and conclusion, like a lot of other people have commented... this is really something that could amplify that $50/hour employee, not take their job away. And maybe we shouldn't read into the alleged speed so much. YMMV.
- sosuke 4y agoI love the time estimates. 2 hours after spending 3 weeks figuring out how to get everything playing nicely together.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago> if you use Patterns (which is neat) Wasn't sure of their proposition/hadn't heard of them. > Run and deploy web apps, task queues, massively parallel compute jobs, machine learning models, GPUs, and much more with a single unified framework for code and infrastructure.
- kvh 4y agoAuthor here, I’ve updated the post. The first draft of this app and blog post took me two hours, but I kept coming back with new ideas and tweaks throughout the week. By the end, I’d certainly spent more than two hours (more like 8?), so you’re right, I just failed to update the post. The main point stands — it’s surprisingly good for the amount of effort put in (although unclear how much more juice you could get out of gpt with more effort. Clear diminishing returns)
- xwolfi 4y agoCan we replace a webmaster with 26 chatgpt prompts?
- OOPMan 4y agoI reckon we can replace a shill with less
- devmor 4y agoIt doesn't seem like you've really replaced anyone with this. You spent 8 hours doing the work that you could have paid an SQL analyst to do in much less. Unless you're saying that your time is worth less than you'd pay the analyst?
- jhugo 4y agoThey built a bot which can answer any number of questions, each of which would have needed some analyst time. Given that the analyst rotation was an entire day once every N weeks, and the bot took 1 day to make, this is going to pay for itself after 1 week. This all assumes that the bot doesn't need tweaking for every answer — i.e. it gets at least some answers right without needing modifications to the bot — which appears to be the case based on the examples in the post.
- freejazz 4y agoBut, generally and unless there is a glaringly wrong result, only an analyst is going to know if the bot is right or not... what exactly does that gain you?
- catothedev 4y agoIt gets you a really sophisticated 'auto-complete' feature
- freejazz 4y ago
- Julesman 4y agoI haven't found GPT this reliable for coding. I've been maxing my hourly usage of ChatGPT since it launched and then switching to CoPilot and I have lots of good things to say about it. But reliability is not one of them. It has a tendency to ignore instructions, as mentioned, but also to get hung up on certain approaches or to use a different approach each time its asked. I'd guess it's very reliable for text generation. But for code, I'm pretty sure the quality of the result would vary quite a from instance to instance. This could very well cut the work needed greatly. But it doesn't come close to replacing anyone. ... Yet. Give it two years.
- nmfisher 4y agoI gave up on ChatGPT for code generation because I ended up spending more time tweaking prompts/fixing outputs than if I had just written it myself in the first place. I think this is probably the future of "coding" but it's not quite there yet. Is CoPilot any better?
- danielbln 4y agoI've found it to be significantly better at code mutation and documentation.
- spacebanana7 4y agoThe UX of CoPilot is a lot better. It feels like a smarter version of autocomplete. They're based on the same GPT3 model so the quality of suggested code is similar but the ability to accept/reject suggestions based on tabbing in CoPilot makes it much less hassle to use.
- fisf 4y agoSame here. ChatGPT kept coming up with syntactically plausible Java code. However, it kept using library methods that plainly don't exist for specific fields.
- onos 4y ago>> They want us to believe if you use Patterns (which is neat)… What do they do? I can’t tell.