2 ms·

What I think you're overlooking is that most people can only do a few hours of hardcore coding at peak productivity a day (3hours for me, maybe) So you could s

by drcode 3y ago

What I think you're overlooking is that most people can only do a few hours of hardcore coding at peak productivity a day (3hours for me, maybe) So you could spend 3hours babysitting GPT4 to write some code for you, but then you'd still have 3 hours of peak code productivity that day that you haven't "used up" yet

_delirium 3y ago
I’m the opposite, personally. I can code for 5 or 6 hours just fine if I’m “in the zone”, but I can’t deal with LLMs for more than an hour or two max, usually less. I find their sweet spot is when I need to ask one or two questions with one or two follow-ups, 5-10 minutes ideally. They can sometimes be a big win in small doses if you can keep it to that kind of interaction. But they are just draining to interact with for longer periods. For me they’re a lot like being a TA stuck in multi-hour office hours with undergrads once you get past a few questions. Just a really shitty slog.
selcuka 3y ago
If it were me, babysitting GPT4 would still spend my peak code productivity credits, as it's basically coding (in natural language).
kaba0 3y ago
It’s thinking either way. I would even wager that the trivial code that GPT writes may be easier to read for me, than some convoluted, human language description of the same thing, done with numerous corrections at every point. The relative uniformity of code is a positive for human understanding as well, e.g. a^2+b^2=c^2 is easier to parse/transmit the idea over any “spoken” version of the same thing.
invalidusernam3 3y ago
True. Although I did find the writing of prompts to be quite exhausting due to tedium and waiting for the output to be frustrating, so that would dig into my energy for peak coding. I would say it uses less concentration, but about the same amount or even more effort. But also it was a very narrow test, maybe for certain things (especially repetitive code or boilerplate code) it could be very beneficial.

by drcode 3y ago

_delirium 3y ago

I’m the opposite, personally. I can code for 5 or 6 hours just fine if I’m “in the zone”, but I can’t deal with LLMs for more than an hour or two max, usually less. I find their sweet spot is when I need to ask one or two questions with one or two follow-ups, 5-10 minutes ideally. They can sometimes be a big win in small doses if you can keep it to that kind of interaction. But they are just draining to interact with for longer periods. For me they’re a lot like being a TA stuck in multi-hour office hours with undergrads once you get past a few questions. Just a really shitty slog.

selcuka 3y ago

If it were me, babysitting GPT4 would still spend my peak code productivity credits, as it's basically coding (in natural language).

kaba0 3y ago

It’s thinking either way. I would even wager that the trivial code that GPT writes may be easier to read for me, than some convoluted, human language description of the same thing, done with numerous corrections at every point. The relative uniformity of code is a positive for human understanding as well, e.g. a^2+b^2=c^2 is easier to parse/transmit the idea over any “spoken” version of the same thing.

invalidusernam3 3y ago

True. Although I did find the writing of prompts to be quite exhausting due to tedium and waiting for the output to be frustrating, so that would dig into my energy for peak coding. I would say it uses less concentration, but about the same amount or even more effort. But also it was a very narrow test, maybe for certain things (especially repetitive code or boilerplate code) it could be very beneficial.