4 ms·

But why should i waste time using a broken product when i can do it properly myself? To me a lot of this debate sounds like people obsessively promoting a produ

But why should i waste time using a broken product when i can do it properly myself? To me a lot of this debate sounds like people obsessively promoting a product for some odd reason, as if they were the happy owners of a hammer in search of a nail.

mrtksn 3y ago
If you are faster and more productive that way, do it that way. Most people are not geniuses and polymaths, it's much easier and cheaper for me to design the architecture and ask ChatGPT to generate the code in many different languages(Swift/HTML/JS/CSS on the client side and Py, JS, PHP on the server side). It's easier because although I'm proficient an all these it's very hard for me to switch solving client specific JS problems to server specific JS problems or between graphics and animation related problems and data processing problems with Swift. It's also cheaper because I don't have to pay someone to do it for me. In my case, I know all that well enough to spot a problem and debug, I just don't want to go through the trouble of actually writing it.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  The debate here is wether openai's product, chatgpt, can indeed deliver what it claims - coding, saving dogs' lives, mental health counceling, and so on. It would appear that it doesn't but it does mislead people without experience in whatever field they use it. For instance if i ask it about law i am impressed, but when I ask it about coding of software engineering it blatantly fails. The conclusion being that as a procedural text generator it is impressive - it nails language - but the value of the output is far from settled. This debate is important because as technical people it is our reposnbility to inform non technical people about the use of this technology and to bring awareness about potential misleading claims its seller makes - as it was the case with crypto currencies, and many other technologies that promised the world delivered nothing of real benefit (but made people rich in the process by exploting the uniformed).
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    That's not the debate, it's the first time I'm hearing about that in this thread.
johnfn 3y ago
It's funny you say that. Reading over a lot of the comments here sound like a lot of people obsessively dismissing a swiss army knife because it doesn't have their random favorite tool of choice.

mrtksn 3y ago

If you are faster and more productive that way, do it that way. Most people are not geniuses and polymaths, it's much easier and cheaper for me to design the architecture and ask ChatGPT to generate the code in many different languages(Swift/HTML/JS/CSS on the client side and Py, JS, PHP on the server side). It's easier because although I'm proficient an all these it's very hard for me to switch solving client specific JS problems to server specific JS problems or between graphics and animation related problems and data processing problems with Swift. It's also cheaper because I don't have to pay someone to do it for me. In my case, I know all that well enough to spot a problem and debug, I just don't want to go through the trouble of actually writing it.

gumballindie 3y ago
The debate here is wether openai's product, chatgpt, can indeed deliver what it claims - coding, saving dogs' lives, mental health counceling, and so on. It would appear that it doesn't but it does mislead people without experience in whatever field they use it. For instance if i ask it about law i am impressed, but when I ask it about coding of software engineering it blatantly fails. The conclusion being that as a procedural text generator it is impressive - it nails language - but the value of the output is far from settled. This debate is important because as technical people it is our reposnbility to inform non technical people about the use of this technology and to bring awareness about potential misleading claims its seller makes - as it was the case with crypto currencies, and many other technologies that promised the world delivered nothing of real benefit (but made people rich in the process by exploting the uniformed).
- mrtksn 3y ago
  That's not the debate, it's the first time I'm hearing about that in this thread.

johnfn 3y ago

It's funny you say that. Reading over a lot of the comments here sound like a lot of people obsessively dismissing a swiss army knife because it doesn't have their random favorite tool of choice.