4 ms·

OP might be implying that from now on many engineers will use AI tools to write the first draft of their code so it’s smart to hire people skilled at correcting

• h0l0cube 4y ago
  Or that the inherent variability in ChatGPT output could make it harder to game examinations based on the same set of prompts
• angarg12 4y ago
  You get the point.
• dicknuckle 4y ago
  It's also good to hire people who are skilled at correcting bad code in general. This is also a good litmus(?) test to see the interesting ways people come to solutions to other's faults.
• shanebellone 4y ago
  "many engineers will use AI tools to write the first draft of their code" I fail to see how ChatGPT would be useful for capable engineers. Is boilerplate code actually a time suck for anyone?
  • williamcotton 4y ago
    Yes, and also having to scan through search engine results and documentation just to find out how to do something like this: const ts = require("typescript"); const options = { target: ts.ScriptTarget.ES2017, module: ts.ModuleKind.CommonJS, }; const someJavaScriptCode = ts.transpileModule(someTypeScriptCode, { compilerOptions: options }); console.log(someJavaScriptCode.outputText); (Actual ChatGPT response when asked to convert TS to JS) That saved me a good five minutes with minimal disruption to my flow. Those little things add up to a significant amount of time and energy. I have two young children, ages 1 and 4, and these tools make it possible for me to program in little 10 minutes bursts between basically endless cooking and cleaning chores. I actually take offense to the notion that you would consider people who find these tools useful to be incapable engineers.
    • shanebellone 4y ago
      "I actually take offense to the notion that you would consider people who find these tools useful to be incapable engineers." I apologize for offending you. I can't imagine parsing code for errors being faster than typing it out. I suppose I assumed most have boilerplate memorized. I'll try to avoid being so presumptuous in the future.
      • williamcotton 4y ago
        There's two ways to check if something is correct: run it or read it. In this case I just copy and pasted the results and it worked as expected. YMMV. I will say that you seem to be operating under the assumption that these tools are less reliable at producing the correct code than they really are! Ironically, the latest GPT-3 models trained before OpenAI made changes to their API resulting in basically useless assistance for things like the openai npm library!
        • shanebellone 4y ago
          "I will say that you seem to be operating under the assumption that these tools are less reliable at producing the correct code than they really are!" Its output is generic. Leverage is not found in convention. For that reason, I find it useless. Plus, I typically retain my codebase. For exploratory coding, I could see some utility.
          • williamcotton 4y ago
            Gotcha. You want code. I want tools. So a tool that helps me make tools is a lever. But a tool that helps you make code is not a lever, because “good code” is your goal. This explains it perfectly! Thank you!
            • shanebellone 4y ago
              "because “good code” is your goal." Original thought is my goal. Otherwise, I think you're spot on. To each their own as they say!