4 ms·
We can do both, ChatGPT can code. So the Astronauts should be able to produce working systems that pass functional tests. The majority of the detractors of thes
by sitkack 4y ago
We can do both, ChatGPT can code. So the Astronauts should be able to produce working systems that pass functional tests. The majority of the detractors of these models don't see the forest for the trees. It only gives new capabilities, they remove nothing.
- thundergolfer 4y ago> It only gives new capabilities, they remove nothing. This is not how technology works in the world. See the arguments of for example McLuhan. Technologies are appendages for the human body or intellect, and at the same time they numb the part of that they amplify. Also the point of the Architecture Astronauts idea is that they don't produce working systems. It's a specific pejorative, it doesn't refer generally to people that work at a high-level without harming the systems they engage with.
- sitkack 4y agoYou clearly have a bone to pick with software architects, if anything it should reduce the amount of Space Travel for said architects. McLuhan, a media analysis astronaut. Average is the message. > Technologies are appendages for the human body or intellect We previously had fleets of people calculating tables of numbers for hours per day. Simple calculators removed that need and increased the speed of results by orders of magnitude. You seem to be arguing for handicap system, an intellectual conservatism. Is that correct? What does ChatGPT remove from ones ability to write low level code or for a software architect to both architect a system AND produce a working model?
- wpietri 4y ago> So the Astronauts should be able to produce working systems that pass functional tests. Nah. This is just a new version of an old mistake, one people have been repeating for decades. People keep trying to come up with ways for people to "code" without understanding what's going on. Code generation wizards. Visual programming tools. Model driven architecture. And a bunch more. The hard part about making software isn't writing a bit of starter code. What we saw with the "code wizard" approach is that somebody clueless could click some buttons and get something working. But then they couldn't maintain it. It just kicked the "understand what's going on" problem down the road from "I don't know how to start" to "I am now trapped in a hell of generated code and people are yelling at me". If some particular application is so standard that it can be produced with only a shallow understanding of how software works, then the right thing isn't using ChatGPT to produce source code. It's when people who have a deeper understanding produce an app that is configurable in the right ways.
- sitkack 4y agoMy 8 year old asks you to look at from a different angle and evaluate what it can actually do right now. I would add, just because someone made a prognostication decades ago does not invalidate the same prognostication now. Have you tried it?
- wpietri 4y agoThose aren't decades-old "prognostications". They are things that happened. Could it be different this time? Maybe! But if you want to say that it will, then you have to make the argument. Or maybe you can get ChatGPT to do it for you?
- sitkack 4y agoHave you tried coding with ChatGPT? It works now. You can use it now to architect a system AND produce working code.