2 ms·
I find copilot hallucinate so many variable names, function names, etc that I find it borderline at best for generating code. I spent about and hour debugging
by Incipient 3y ago
I find copilot hallucinate so many variable names, function names, etc that I find it borderline at best for generating code.
I spent about and hour debugging before I realised copilot had put two function arguments in backwards, f(b,a) instead of f(a,b). Yes I should have read it more clearly, but after 4h of working, it just slipped through.
Copilot has "intelisense++" is more useful, but even then the ux is kinda horrible where it inserts random extra quotes at the end of strings and whatnot.
Copilot chat/gpt4/bingai is a lot lot better, but it needs to be integrated into vscode and actually be aware of the entire code base.
- Gigachad 3y agoI think AI will result in a huge push for statically typed languages so the system can verify its own answers for you.
- dinvlad 3y agoGive it a couple years, and everyone will forget it and move on to some new shiny
- davidatbu 3y agoI THINK SO TOO! I'm 97% sure that just using static analysis to provide all the relevant type definitions and function signatures as context for code completion in LLMs alone will be a massive value-add. I'm literally doing that by hand right now to GPT-4, and it works. And I think there's more stuff that can be done where one sets up an automated cycle of (1) prompt LLM, (2) type-check completions, (3) construct prompt that incorporates type checking errors, ..etc. I really think that this, combined with types written with the "make illegal states unrepresentable" philosophy, will be great. I really wish I had time to work on this myself.