4 ms·

I agree, however, one difference between those other modalities is that with code, you have a compiler to tell you it’s wrong. This means: 1. The ai can self c

I agree, however, one difference between those other modalities is that with code, you have a compiler to tell you it’s wrong. This means: 1. The ai can self correct 2. The programmer can learn As another commenter said, not everyone needs “good” code and not all code has to scale to hundreds of devs and millions of people to be extremely (millions in revenue) valuable

verdverm 3y ago
A compiler will only catch some errors and is language dependent, it will not catch logical errors or edge cases. There are ample examples in very limited contexts like SQL queries. Certainly the LLMs have not been able to scale the size of an application they can write yet. I'm not sure the current techniques will be able to without significant human involvement by someone who can already program. Some other break through is likely needed for generative AI to reach the next plateau of capabilities.
thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
>> not everyone needs “good” code and not all code has to scale to hundreds of devs and millions of people to be extremely (millions in revenue) valuable The problem is that neither the AI nor the average person can tell good code from bad code. This is the classic problem of "the blind leading the blind". Imagine generating code to build a business only to discover that the generated code is easy to hack into, putting the business at risk. Or that the generated code does not actually do what the requester asked for, causing subtle errors that are not detected until later. Image making critical business decisions using inaccurate reports that were created using AI-generated code. If you value your business would you trust an AI that cannot tell fact from fiction to write code your business will rely on? You would be beter off having the AI write your marketing plan than have it write your business applications.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  This happens with humans too. Humans write code with bugs, technical debt, security flaws, etc. I would trust an AI to generate code a lot faster than a junior engineer with 4 months experience. That’s the trade off, not AI vs a 10 year experience architect.
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> This happens with humans too. Humans write code with bugs, technical debt, security flaws, etc. >> I would trust an AI to generate code a lot faster than a junior engineer with 4 months experience. That’s the trade off, not AI vs a 10 year experience architect. That's not what the Nvidia CEO is selling. He is saying that the AI replaces programmers. Not junior engineers, not experienced architects, but programmers in general. Jensen Huang said: "The programming barrier is incredibly low. We have closed the digital divide. Everyone is a programmer now - you just have to say something to the computer." His statement is blatantly false. He is just trying to sell Nvidia hardware and tools. If he really believed what he said, he would be firing Nvidia programmers to reduce Nvidia's costs.
    - motoxpro 3y ago
      I don't read it that way at all. I read it like "The person who has never programmed can now write code" It says nothing about replacing anyone, more about expanding the pie and lowering the barrier to entry. No where did he say those programmers "will be senior engineers and the senior engineers will be out of work" He didn't even imply it.

verdverm 3y ago

A compiler will only catch some errors and is language dependent, it will not catch logical errors or edge cases. There are ample examples in very limited contexts like SQL queries. Certainly the LLMs have not been able to scale the size of an application they can write yet. I'm not sure the current techniques will be able to without significant human involvement by someone who can already program. Some other break through is likely needed for generative AI to reach the next plateau of capabilities.

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago

>> not everyone needs “good” code and not all code has to scale to hundreds of devs and millions of people to be extremely (millions in revenue) valuable The problem is that neither the AI nor the average person can tell good code from bad code. This is the classic problem of "the blind leading the blind". Imagine generating code to build a business only to discover that the generated code is easy to hack into, putting the business at risk. Or that the generated code does not actually do what the requester asked for, causing subtle errors that are not detected until later. Image making critical business decisions using inaccurate reports that were created using AI-generated code. If you value your business would you trust an AI that cannot tell fact from fiction to write code your business will rely on? You would be beter off having the AI write your marketing plan than have it write your business applications.

motoxpro 3y ago
This happens with humans too. Humans write code with bugs, technical debt, security flaws, etc. I would trust an AI to generate code a lot faster than a junior engineer with 4 months experience. That’s the trade off, not AI vs a 10 year experience architect.
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> This happens with humans too. Humans write code with bugs, technical debt, security flaws, etc. >> I would trust an AI to generate code a lot faster than a junior engineer with 4 months experience. That’s the trade off, not AI vs a 10 year experience architect. That's not what the Nvidia CEO is selling. He is saying that the AI replaces programmers. Not junior engineers, not experienced architects, but programmers in general. Jensen Huang said: "The programming barrier is incredibly low. We have closed the digital divide. Everyone is a programmer now - you just have to say something to the computer." His statement is blatantly false. He is just trying to sell Nvidia hardware and tools. If he really believed what he said, he would be firing Nvidia programmers to reduce Nvidia's costs.
  - motoxpro 3y ago
    I don't read it that way at all. I read it like "The person who has never programmed can now write code" It says nothing about replacing anyone, more about expanding the pie and lowering the barrier to entry. No where did he say those programmers "will be senior engineers and the senior engineers will be out of work" He didn't even imply it.