4 ms·

> I don't know I'm really confused about how some people think it's so worthless. Maybe because either they believe that ChatGPT is worthless, or they have to

> I don't know I'm really confused about how some people think it's so worthless. Maybe because either they believe that ChatGPT is worthless, or they have to deal with the fact that their knowledge is becoming worthless (or, at least, worth less).

holoduke 4y ago
From either side there is a lot of belief with just minor real experience to fully judge. For me it saves tons of coding time. Together with copilot i am twice as productive. At least.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  as someone no longer in industry, I'm curious how this has affected the economics? if you're twice as effective, are jobs being cut? are you working fewer hours? are you accomplishing twice as much?
ddalex 4y ago
I can tell you why I dislike ChatGPT, it's because it's not trustworthy. Somebody that is not well versed in the subject cannot distinguish the hallucinations of the machine, and for somebody that is well versed, they are better served by a rubber duck that doesn't lead them astray
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what they do but aren’t infallible and I do have to verify a lot of what they do and say. I don’t dislike them for it, they’re human. Why when it’s a machine that’s largely accurate but sometimes hallucinates it’s a perceived failure, while these folks I work with keep getting promoted and praised for their sometimes untrustworthy work?
  - ddalex 4y ago
    Because we (or perhaps I) apply different standards to different situations - a bad car driver that causes accidents are accepted as facts of life, whereas a computer driven car is expected to be far safer and have no fatalities. Personally I find it useless to see a machine as a colleague when it is not better in any way then a colleague, in the same way I don't see a hammer as a very punchy workmate. If I want to have a conversation about something I'll go talk to a human, when I interrogate a database I expect it to be better then a random human.

holoduke 4y ago

From either side there is a lot of belief with just minor real experience to fully judge. For me it saves tons of coding time. Together with copilot i am twice as productive. At least.

jasonfarnon 4y ago
as someone no longer in industry, I'm curious how this has affected the economics? if you're twice as effective, are jobs being cut? are you working fewer hours? are you accomplishing twice as much?

ddalex 4y ago

I can tell you why I dislike ChatGPT, it's because it's not trustworthy. Somebody that is not well versed in the subject cannot distinguish the hallucinations of the machine, and for somebody that is well versed, they are better served by a rubber duck that doesn't lead them astray

fnordpiglet 4y ago
Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what they do but aren’t infallible and I do have to verify a lot of what they do and say. I don’t dislike them for it, they’re human. Why when it’s a machine that’s largely accurate but sometimes hallucinates it’s a perceived failure, while these folks I work with keep getting promoted and praised for their sometimes untrustworthy work?
- ddalex 4y ago
  Because we (or perhaps I) apply different standards to different situations - a bad car driver that causes accidents are accepted as facts of life, whereas a computer driven car is expected to be far safer and have no fatalities. Personally I find it useless to see a machine as a colleague when it is not better in any way then a colleague, in the same way I don't see a hammer as a very punchy workmate. If I want to have a conversation about something I'll go talk to a human, when I interrogate a database I expect it to be better then a random human.