3 ms·
I strongly disagree. Having something which is 90% reliable doesn't save me any effort over just doing it myself. If I have to spend the time to check everythin
by bigstrat2003 3y ago
I strongly disagree. Having something which is 90% reliable doesn't save me any effort over just doing it myself. If I have to spend the time to check everything the tool generates (which I do, because LLMs are unreliable) then I may as well have written it myself to start with.
I firmly believe that the worst kind of help is unreliable help. If your help never does its job, then you know you have to do everything yourself. If your help always does its job, you know you can trust it. If your help only sometimes does its job, you get the worst deal of all because you never know what you'll get and have to check every single time.
- willsmith72 3y ago> If I have to spend the time to check everything the tool generates (which I do, because LLMs are unreliable) then I may as well have written it myself to start with. Do you feel the same way about a PR from a coworker?
- diputsmonro 3y agoDepends on the coworker. I would say that I trust ChatGPT code much less than the average coworker, because coworkers usually don't do something like use imaginary variables or check-in code that doesn't compile.
- simonw 3y agoI have nearly 12 months of personal experience now that having LLMs produce code for me - even when I only use ~20% of the code they generate - is still a huge personal productivity boost. Unreliable help is still useful if you know that it's unreliable - you learn to keep a critical eye on what it's doing and correct when necessary. Still saves a ton of time, and I'm not guessing that, I'm saying that from my own experience.