4 ms·

I’m sorry but it sounds like you’re failing to understand how to use a new tool. I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, tr

I’m sorry but it sounds like you’re failing to understand how to use a new tool. I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, transform my local data and generally combine new concepts in unique and sometimes funny ways. It has taught me, it has saved me time, and it has inspired me. You have to put at least a little effort into coaxing it. All that said, yes.. it is still basically autocomplete, but also useful sometimes.

rektide 4y ago
Who has made clear the new tools value? What clear portraits are there of it, not just being a code-generator but of assistant-ating use? I'm fine being wrong here. But just being a mean dispirited bastard rejecting my premise out of spite & providing zero helpful indicators is a barren shitty pathetic attempt to dismiss me. Say something real we can talk about, show some possibility. Of substantiate-able substance. There is literally nothing concrete I can reply to in your fluff. Maybe your experience really means something & is real. But there's no case made for or against that. You haven't made any case for yourself. There's no clear correlating examples. You've crowed up a belief, without support or cause. So far I'm not sure which if any of these systems even can look at your code. What have you seen that can?
- rektide 4y ago
  Permit me to rephrase... Someone has to present a case. My only case so far is that there is no case, there is no value, this is un-creationist & regurgatory. We can both accept that my premise might not be right. Who has the obligation here to present evidence? Is having no good evidence but maybe no clear negatives an acceptable counter to my claims? Are there more forward stances I need to consider & deal with? Or is your whole premise about as it seems, a shade-throwing you-don't-know "trust-me"? What would possibly satisfy you, how far would I have to go trying stuff before you could say, OK, yeah, your right, it's indeed predominantly mostly bunk? Who do you think has the decision? Do you have evidence to contribute? Is lack of anti-evidence, the possibility of maybe all you want? How do we decide this?
- jhanschoo 4y ago
  >> I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, transform my local data and generally combine new concepts in unique and sometimes funny ways. It has taught me, it has saved me time, and it has inspired me. You have to put at least a little effort into coaxing it. All that said, yes.. it is still basically autocomplete, but also useful sometimes. > There is literally nothing concrete I can reply to in your fluff. Maybe your experience really means something & is real. But there's no case made for or against that. You haven't made any case for yourself. There's no clear correlating examples. You've crowed up a belief, without support or cause. > So far I'm not sure which if any of these systems even can look at your code. What have you seen that can? I think the replier has been quite concrete, and I think it would be quite clear what they are referring to if you have given these tools an earnest try. Nevertheless, let me give what I've been using them for: I've used copilot to autocomplete boilerplate. I've used ChatGPT to start brainstorming gift ideas, to look for documentation, to look for suggestions for study resources, and to get (always incorrect here and there) code examples of usages of public code libraries. In all these cases I can also get somewhere with some focused thought and research, but AI helps me do it faster with less brainpower. Then one's work is lightened just like how an unreliable student or intern can lighten a workload. This is what I suppose the replier means by autocomplete, where the discovery (which can be hard) as well as easy work is done mostly right for you by the AI. Actually, in my experience, these tools are better as assistants and as smart rubber ducks than in helping to produce good code, where IDE tools still feel superior.

rektide 4y ago

Who has made clear the new tools value? What clear portraits are there of it, not just being a code-generator but of assistant-ating use? I'm fine being wrong here. But just being a mean dispirited bastard rejecting my premise out of spite & providing zero helpful indicators is a barren shitty pathetic attempt to dismiss me. Say something real we can talk about, show some possibility. Of substantiate-able substance. There is literally nothing concrete I can reply to in your fluff. Maybe your experience really means something & is real. But there's no case made for or against that. You haven't made any case for yourself. There's no clear correlating examples. You've crowed up a belief, without support or cause. So far I'm not sure which if any of these systems even can look at your code. What have you seen that can?

rektide 4y ago
Permit me to rephrase... Someone has to present a case. My only case so far is that there is no case, there is no value, this is un-creationist & regurgatory. We can both accept that my premise might not be right. Who has the obligation here to present evidence? Is having no good evidence but maybe no clear negatives an acceptable counter to my claims? Are there more forward stances I need to consider & deal with? Or is your whole premise about as it seems, a shade-throwing you-don't-know "trust-me"? What would possibly satisfy you, how far would I have to go trying stuff before you could say, OK, yeah, your right, it's indeed predominantly mostly bunk? Who do you think has the decision? Do you have evidence to contribute? Is lack of anti-evidence, the possibility of maybe all you want? How do we decide this?
jhanschoo 4y ago
>> I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, transform my local data and generally combine new concepts in unique and sometimes funny ways. It has taught me, it has saved me time, and it has inspired me. You have to put at least a little effort into coaxing it. All that said, yes.. it is still basically autocomplete, but also useful sometimes. > There is literally nothing concrete I can reply to in your fluff. Maybe your experience really means something & is real. But there's no case made for or against that. You haven't made any case for yourself. There's no clear correlating examples. You've crowed up a belief, without support or cause. > So far I'm not sure which if any of these systems even can look at your code. What have you seen that can? I think the replier has been quite concrete, and I think it would be quite clear what they are referring to if you have given these tools an earnest try. Nevertheless, let me give what I've been using them for: I've used copilot to autocomplete boilerplate. I've used ChatGPT to start brainstorming gift ideas, to look for documentation, to look for suggestions for study resources, and to get (always incorrect here and there) code examples of usages of public code libraries. In all these cases I can also get somewhere with some focused thought and research, but AI helps me do it faster with less brainpower. Then one's work is lightened just like how an unreliable student or intern can lighten a workload. This is what I suppose the replier means by autocomplete, where the discovery (which can be hard) as well as easy work is done mostly right for you by the AI. Actually, in my experience, these tools are better as assistants and as smart rubber ducks than in helping to produce good code, where IDE tools still feel superior.