4 ms·
If you told me in 2005 there would be something non-human that can get a coding question right with near-coin-flip accuracy I'd say you're crazy.
by sam0x17 3y ago
If you told me in 2005 there would be something non-human that can get a coding question right with near-coin-flip accuracy I'd say you're crazy.
- jychang 3y agoWouldn’t a coin be able to do that pretty well in 2005?
- flangola7 3y agoI would expect a coin to do it 0% of the time.
- sam0x17 3y agoUnless the question was "write a program that simulates a coin flip"
- sam0x17 3y agoTrue/false answers to programming questions don't build apps.
- captainbland 3y agoOnly if it was choosing between one of two answers to begin with. The analogy is a bit weird here because there's far more than two potential answers it could give but it still manages to pick the right one almost half the time.
- vba616 3y agoThe free version of ChatGPT, which is now calling itself 3.5, has a seemingly consistent type of answer whenever I ask it how to code something I don't know how to do. It outputs some boilerplate code, and inserts a method with comments saying "insert logic here" - entirely sidestepping the request. You can say that's remarkably human-like, but if it was a human cow-orker, you would not keep them on the payroll. It is a cheat, like ELIZA, like SHRDLU, like a useless employee. I asked ChatGPT-3.5 for the usual rejoinder to complainers: "If you're looking for an enhanced experience, you might want to consider trying out the paid version called ChatGPT-4. It offers even more capabilities and improvements. Feel free to explore the options available to find the best fit for your needs!""