3 ms·

Ok, so we have that software written by AI, AI is clever, it does not need good variable names or functions/methods/class names, some of the stuff it will call

Ok, so we have that software written by AI, AI is clever, it does not need good variable names or functions/methods/class names, some of the stuff it will call according to passed specification so it will be understandable, but the further it goes, everything will get more generic, taken from kirjillion of other code snippets on Github. And it all will be working. Until someone starts testing this and finds a bug. And then AI will say, hey, there is no bug, I don't make mistakes. So you need a human to look on the code, a huge pile of spaghetti code with cryptic names and conventions, code patterns that fell out of fashion years ago but, since there is a lot of code that uses them, AI thinks they are ok. How long it will take to fix anything, how long it will take to extend the code?

crop_rotation 4y ago
You should try GPT4. It does use very reasonable variable, function, method class names. And if you point out that the code doesn't match your intent, it comes with new code fixing your issues. The code it generates is by no measure "a huge pile of spaghetti code with cryptic names and conventions". I was sceptical myself before trying GPT4. I asked it to change the Python C internals for a new feature, and googled to ensure the description doesn't exist anywhere. It came up with very good changes and explanations. And this is all not even mentioning the pace of improvements. It didn't take too long to go from GPT3 to GPT4. Even if the pace slows down, it is still huge.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
raincole 4y ago
I believe you never use ChatGPT. I'm not claiming you never use GPT4, I'm claiming you never use even GPT3.5. If you did you will notice its problem is the opposite of what you describe. Especially: > it does not need good variable names or functions/methods/class names, It's the exact opposite. It's too good at naming things. It insists to use variable/function names that make sense in plain english, and often make mistakes when the API has inconsistent naming, or consistent but unusual naming. For example, it makes mistakes when writing code that use "Loop" in Blender API. And the reason is quite obvious to me: because Blender's "Loop" is not what loop means in plain english.
- precompute 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981 https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981

crop_rotation 4y ago

You should try GPT4. It does use very reasonable variable, function, method class names. And if you point out that the code doesn't match your intent, it comes with new code fixing your issues. The code it generates is by no measure "a huge pile of spaghetti code with cryptic names and conventions". I was sceptical myself before trying GPT4. I asked it to change the Python C internals for a new feature, and googled to ensure the description doesn't exist anywhere. It came up with very good changes and explanations. And this is all not even mentioning the pace of improvements. It didn't take too long to go from GPT3 to GPT4. Even if the pace slows down, it is still huge.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

raincole 4y ago

I believe you never use ChatGPT. I'm not claiming you never use GPT4, I'm claiming you never use even GPT3.5. If you did you will notice its problem is the opposite of what you describe. Especially: > it does not need good variable names or functions/methods/class names, It's the exact opposite. It's too good at naming things. It insists to use variable/function names that make sense in plain english, and often make mistakes when the API has inconsistent naming, or consistent but unusual naming. For example, it makes mistakes when writing code that use "Loop" in Blender API. And the reason is quite obvious to me: because Blender's "Loop" is not what loop means in plain english.

precompute 4y ago
https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981 https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981