3 ms·

Is it everyone else that's wrong or.... > if it doesn't know well a person it simply makes up things Asking it for factual information about a subject can be

by afro88 3y ago

Is it everyone else that's wrong or.... > if it doesn't know well a person it simply makes up things Asking it for factual information about a subject can be a bit hit/miss depending on the subject. Better to use bing chat, because it will use info from the web to inform the response > if I ask code examples or scripts, most of the time they are wrong, I need to fix them, they contain obsolete syntax etc... How wrong? More wrong than having a junior or mid level developer contributing code? Think about it a different way: you just gained an assistant developer that writes mostly correct code in seconds. Big time saver. Also: if you want it to use a particular code style etc, give it few shot examples. > if I'm asking a question, I'm expecting being asked for more context if the subject is not clear Then you need to tell it that in you prompt: "if the subject isn't clear, ask me some clarifying questions. Don't respond with your answer until I have answered your clarifying questions first". Or: "ask me 3 clarifying questions before answering" to force it to "consider" how well it "knows" the subject first. ChatGPT isn't an AI in the sci fi sense of the word. It's a language model that needs to be prompted the right way to get the results you want. You will get a feel for that the more you use it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
raincole 3y ago
And even if ChatGPT is always 100% wrong with code, I still failed to see how it is relevant to this particular article. The article compares verified responses on r/AskDocs (yeah, a subreddit) and those from ChatGPT. That's it. How is its coding compatibility even remotely relevant? It's like saying "Excel is bad in editing photos, so it must be a bad spreadsheet software as well."
- rafaelero 3y ago
  Indeed. I don't understand why these types of comments get so many interactions. It makes me think they are relevant but on second inspection they are mostly unrelated grievances.
isaacremuant 3y ago
> Is it everyone else that's wrong or.... This is disingenuous. OP is right. ChatGPT is mostly inaccurate and contextless by nature. It always produces something confidently so it's very easy to think it's the right answer. Now, it can be extremely useful for any task that can be easily verifiable and you don't know the syntax, how to approach something, etc. Because any decent software developer can use it as part of the prototyping or brainstorming and get wherever they want to go in coordination with ChatGPT. What you can't do is assume it's "the expert". You are the expert and you're the intelligent one and the chat generates potential useful things. That's on verifiable stuff. On other things it can be so laughably bad it's impressive how much "everyone" (as in articles, hype, HN users who downvote criticism as being from luddites) pushes it as something that is not: an AI that can think and be relied upon and any inacuracy will just "get better with time" aa opposed to "the model and also the politics around it" doesn't have a path to get to that idealisation that is being sold. It's a tool, but it's usually sold as better than it is, like in this case, presumably with the intent of relying upon it to save cost in some key integration point. The problem is that it mostly won't work and comparing it to bad humans or worse integrations doesn't show the fundamental low ceiling that it has. I think people with authoritarian mindsets (and I don't mind Left or right but inherent trust in authority) easily want this to be a source of truth they can magically use, but there's no path for that to be true. Just to appear true.
kaba0 3y ago
> How wrong? More wrong than having a junior or mid level developer contributing code? Yes. The failure mode of a human and chatgpt are nothing alike — I am far more experienced in spotting beginner mistakes in code reviews, then seemingly good, but actually illogical bullshit code generated by LLMs. I have never had it produce non-trivial, novel code that was correct, so I mostly use it as a search engine instead.
- zmnd 3y ago
  Can you give an example? Have you tried asking it to generate both code and unit tests for it?
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  I can only conclude that both the junior and senior were inappropriate hires if people really think the output of an LLM is anything approaching that of an appropriate human being. It's saying a lot about where people work, IMO. Either that or the problems they're solving are nothing boilerplate couldn't handle.
jasondigitized 3y ago
This. It’s ability to stub code is a huge productivity gain. Paste code. Test it. Tweak it. Done.

by afro88 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

raincole 3y ago

And even if ChatGPT is always 100% wrong with code, I still failed to see how it is relevant to this particular article. The article compares verified responses on r/AskDocs (yeah, a subreddit) and those from ChatGPT. That's it. How is its coding compatibility even remotely relevant? It's like saying "Excel is bad in editing photos, so it must be a bad spreadsheet software as well."

rafaelero 3y ago
Indeed. I don't understand why these types of comments get so many interactions. It makes me think they are relevant but on second inspection they are mostly unrelated grievances.

isaacremuant 3y ago

> Is it everyone else that's wrong or.... This is disingenuous. OP is right. ChatGPT is mostly inaccurate and contextless by nature. It always produces something confidently so it's very easy to think it's the right answer. Now, it can be extremely useful for any task that can be easily verifiable and you don't know the syntax, how to approach something, etc. Because any decent software developer can use it as part of the prototyping or brainstorming and get wherever they want to go in coordination with ChatGPT. What you can't do is assume it's "the expert". You are the expert and you're the intelligent one and the chat generates potential useful things. That's on verifiable stuff. On other things it can be so laughably bad it's impressive how much "everyone" (as in articles, hype, HN users who downvote criticism as being from luddites) pushes it as something that is not: an AI that can think and be relied upon and any inacuracy will just "get better with time" aa opposed to "the model and also the politics around it" doesn't have a path to get to that idealisation that is being sold. It's a tool, but it's usually sold as better than it is, like in this case, presumably with the intent of relying upon it to save cost in some key integration point. The problem is that it mostly won't work and comparing it to bad humans or worse integrations doesn't show the fundamental low ceiling that it has. I think people with authoritarian mindsets (and I don't mind Left or right but inherent trust in authority) easily want this to be a source of truth they can magically use, but there's no path for that to be true. Just to appear true.

kaba0 3y ago

> How wrong? More wrong than having a junior or mid level developer contributing code? Yes. The failure mode of a human and chatgpt are nothing alike — I am far more experienced in spotting beginner mistakes in code reviews, then seemingly good, but actually illogical bullshit code generated by LLMs. I have never had it produce non-trivial, novel code that was correct, so I mostly use it as a search engine instead.

zmnd 3y ago
Can you give an example? Have you tried asking it to generate both code and unit tests for it?
hammyhavoc 3y ago
I can only conclude that both the junior and senior were inappropriate hires if people really think the output of an LLM is anything approaching that of an appropriate human being. It's saying a lot about where people work, IMO. Either that or the problems they're solving are nothing boilerplate couldn't handle.

jasondigitized 3y ago

This. It’s ability to stub code is a huge productivity gain. Paste code. Test it. Tweak it. Done.