4 ms·

Using an LLM yesterday to code, there was no way I’d be proficient with the workflow if I wasn’t an experienced programmer. I’ve never seen code look so correc

Using an LLM yesterday to code, there was no way I’d be proficient with the workflow if I wasn’t an experienced programmer. I’ve never seen code look so correct, sort of work but be so strangely crap.

chillfox 4y ago
I used to think that LLMs for coding would mostly be a tool to make experienced developers much more productive, but after coming across this video I think it will be used by normal people with no programming experience to make small basic programs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyKKhxYJ4U4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyKKhxYJ4U4
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  Normal people with no programming experience can already make small basic programs by copy-pasting code from Github and StackOverflow.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    This is so much harder than most people think. I would reckon that as soon as a complication shows up, 75% of non coders will get helplessly stuck. Complication meaning something slightly beyond changing variable names: you need a different if condition, the snippet doesn't contain the required import, the version has advanced slightly.
  - chillfox 4y ago
    Most people will have no idea where to even paste the code. The key take away from the video I linked is that an AI can tell people not only what code to copy, but where to copy it and what to change if it doesn't work.
    - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      > where to copy it and what to change if it doesn't work Google can do that too. (Well, it could if it wasn't permanently broken from SEO spam and monetization efforts.) Which is the key takeaway: the "chat" part of ChatGPT is a stupid smoke and mirrors gimmick. The salient useful parts are the large and well-curated training database. Which is technically quite possible to do without "AI" or text generators; though possibly not realistic from a business sense. There's no business case for "information search without spam and ads".
jeltz 4y ago
Indeed, ChatGPT really excels at being confidently incorrect. Ask it anything non-trivial and chances are that it has written code which is subtly wrong, and sometimes very subtly.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
  it got me today. produced correct output for good input but did not consider a very big edge case that i didn't initially think about. if this is how we're going to write code then there's going to be even more broken edge cases than usual.
  - visarga 4y ago
    Maybe you needed to ask the model to review its own work and especially look for edge cases.
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
      I could. But then I'd feel like a parent that needs to tell his kid to wash his hands and zip up his pants.
onion2k 4y ago
I’ve never seen code look so correct, sort of work but be so strangely crap. This is my experience of GPT generated code too. It needs refactoring as soon as it's generated for me to be happy with it. The real question is whether that actually matters though. If an AI tool is writing ugly code that works, and the 'developer' is only interacting with that code through prompts, then what the code looks like is irrevelant. No one will see it. It'd be like worrying about what the inside of a Photoshop file or a Word doc looks like. I think we're some way off using AI to write and modify code like it's an opaque file, but once we're there it won't matter if that code is ugly and terrible. No one will look.
- rolisz 4y ago
  Yes, I can easily see a future where many abstractions we currently use in code will go away, because we'll just use LLMs to change the code when needed, instead of trying to future proof code.
  - visarga 4y ago
    Refactoring and cleaning up technical debt might see huge improvements in the future.
akrymski 4y ago
Sounds like an assembly programmer trying C for the first time. Sure the produced assembly isn't as good as hand written. But with Moore's law, maybe it doesn't matter?
- funnymony 4y ago
  Not sure if you heard - Gordon Moore just recently passed away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    That doesn't have anything to do with the parent poster's point.

chillfox 4y ago

I used to think that LLMs for coding would mostly be a tool to make experienced developers much more productive, but after coming across this video I think it will be used by normal people with no programming experience to make small basic programs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyKKhxYJ4U4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyKKhxYJ4U4

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
Normal people with no programming experience can already make small basic programs by copy-pasting code from Github and StackOverflow.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  This is so much harder than most people think. I would reckon that as soon as a complication shows up, 75% of non coders will get helplessly stuck. Complication meaning something slightly beyond changing variable names: you need a different if condition, the snippet doesn't contain the required import, the version has advanced slightly.
- chillfox 4y ago
  Most people will have no idea where to even paste the code. The key take away from the video I linked is that an AI can tell people not only what code to copy, but where to copy it and what to change if it doesn't work.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    > where to copy it and what to change if it doesn't work Google can do that too. (Well, it could if it wasn't permanently broken from SEO spam and monetization efforts.) Which is the key takeaway: the "chat" part of ChatGPT is a stupid smoke and mirrors gimmick. The salient useful parts are the large and well-curated training database. Which is technically quite possible to do without "AI" or text generators; though possibly not realistic from a business sense. There's no business case for "information search without spam and ads".

jeltz 4y ago

Indeed, ChatGPT really excels at being confidently incorrect. Ask it anything non-trivial and chances are that it has written code which is subtly wrong, and sometimes very subtly.

8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
it got me today. produced correct output for good input but did not consider a very big edge case that i didn't initially think about. if this is how we're going to write code then there's going to be even more broken edge cases than usual.
- visarga 4y ago
  Maybe you needed to ask the model to review its own work and especially look for edge cases.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
    I could. But then I'd feel like a parent that needs to tell his kid to wash his hands and zip up his pants.

onion2k 4y ago

I’ve never seen code look so correct, sort of work but be so strangely crap. This is my experience of GPT generated code too. It needs refactoring as soon as it's generated for me to be happy with it. The real question is whether that actually matters though. If an AI tool is writing ugly code that works, and the 'developer' is only interacting with that code through prompts, then what the code looks like is irrevelant. No one will see it. It'd be like worrying about what the inside of a Photoshop file or a Word doc looks like. I think we're some way off using AI to write and modify code like it's an opaque file, but once we're there it won't matter if that code is ugly and terrible. No one will look.

rolisz 4y ago
Yes, I can easily see a future where many abstractions we currently use in code will go away, because we'll just use LLMs to change the code when needed, instead of trying to future proof code.
- visarga 4y ago
  Refactoring and cleaning up technical debt might see huge improvements in the future.

akrymski 4y ago

Sounds like an assembly programmer trying C for the first time. Sure the produced assembly isn't as good as hand written. But with Moore's law, maybe it doesn't matter?

funnymony 4y ago
Not sure if you heard - Gordon Moore just recently passed away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  That doesn't have anything to do with the parent poster's point.