4 ms·
> If GPT is like an assistant whose work you always have to double check in order to be sure of the validity of the results, that seems to be a pretty big cavea
by humanistbot 3y ago
> If GPT is like an assistant whose work you always have to double check in order to be sure of the validity of the results, that seems to be a pretty big caveat to me.
Sounds like every junior developer fresh out of college I've had to work with. Interns are even worse. Even senior devs mess up from time to time. That's why we do code review and other QA. Trust no one.
- belugacat 3y agoTrue, but one obvious difference is that a senior contributor can typically validate the work of a more junior one in less time than it took them to produce, that’s why the overall equation works. And if you decide to keep the more junior person, it’s probably because you feel like they’re improving and becoming more trustworthy over time. Another key difference is that a deterministic script that has determined to be valid will be valid for all subsequent runs, regardless of input size. That is not the case for ChatGPT, which might be correct on some runs and not others, or do well on small input sizes but start messing up when thousands (or more) of data items are involved. Again, I still think ChatGPT is really cool, but thinking about all these nuances about the nature of the work that is actually being done when you use ChatGPT vs writing a script vs handing it off to an intern seems crucial to the debate.