4 ms·

I trust ChatGPT as much as I trust my co-workers. That is to say, I don't need to trust them, because I have eyes and a brain. "This code doesn't do what you s

I trust ChatGPT as much as I trust my co-workers. That is to say, I don't need to trust them, because I have eyes and a brain. "This code doesn't do what you say it will" is not a review comment reserved exclusively for machine-generated code.

chrisjj 2y ago
> I trust ChatGPT as much as I trust my co-workers. That is to say, I don't need to trust them, because I have eyes and a brain. ... and 100 hours a day to review and test their code? :)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  It takes them longer to write the wrong code than it takes me to look at it and tell them where it's wrong. And yes, reviewing code is part of my job. And the reason it's part of my job is that people who get hired as programmers are often very bad at not making obvious mistakes.
  - chrisjj 2y ago
    It had not ocurred to me that anyone would hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      > It had not ocurred to me that anyone would hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT. I would say that this points more to the narrowness of your industry experience than anything else. Failing to compile is one of a million different ways that code doesn't produce the claimed or desired or correct behavior. It's not particularly special. All code needs to be reviewed, regardless of who/what wrote it and how.
      - chrisjj 2y ago
        > I would say that this points more to the narrowness of your industry experience than anything else. Good point. I'll correct to: It had not ocurred to me that anyone would /knowingly/ hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT. Anyone who would knowingly could well be delighted to use ChatGPT instead.
        BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        > It had not ocurred to me that anyone would /knowingly/ hire a programmer who They don't. Hiring happens before the first commit. This incredulity about programmers not all being consistently excellent is what makes it sound like your practical experience is very limited. Point of fact, you're here complaining that a product (ChatGPT 3.5) known to be substantively shitty is substantively shitty, and when people say "you know v4 is very significantly better, right?" you say "but that one isn't free". That gives a strong vibe that you know you're doing something bad and just don't care. Is that the vibe of consistent excellence? I would say no. > submitted code that fails even to compile You seem stuck on this business of not compiling when that failure mode is in fact extremely less consequential than literally any other failure mode. Wake me up when humans stop writing code that compiles and runs and tests just fine while doing the wrong thing literally all the time. Asking how anyone can blindly trust ChatGPT code is a fundamentally broken question. You can't blindly trust human code either. Trust has to be earned by past demonstrations of performance within the specific domain. A reviewer earns trust by consistently catching other peoples' mistakes. A programmer earns trust by consistently not making obvious mistakes in the first place. When I see a reviewer who consistently fails to catch other peoples' mistakes, I do not trust that reviewer. Giving a human more inherent trust than you give ChatGPT without experiencing sufficient past performance to have earned it would be your own failure. Humans are very stupid and fuck up constantly.
        chrisjj 2y ago
        > This incredulity about programmers not all being consistently excellent I wouldn't say programmers who compile are all excellent. And I didn't. > when people say "you know v4 is very significantly better, right?" you say "but that one isn't free". I think you must be mistaking another poster for me. I didn't say that either.

chrisjj 2y ago

> I trust ChatGPT as much as I trust my co-workers. That is to say, I don't need to trust them, because I have eyes and a brain. ... and 100 hours a day to review and test their code? :)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
It takes them longer to write the wrong code than it takes me to look at it and tell them where it's wrong. And yes, reviewing code is part of my job. And the reason it's part of my job is that people who get hired as programmers are often very bad at not making obvious mistakes.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  It had not ocurred to me that anyone would hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > It had not ocurred to me that anyone would hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT. I would say that this points more to the narrowness of your industry experience than anything else. Failing to compile is one of a million different ways that code doesn't produce the claimed or desired or correct behavior. It's not particularly special. All code needs to be reviewed, regardless of who/what wrote it and how.
    - chrisjj 2y ago
      > I would say that this points more to the narrowness of your industry experience than anything else. Good point. I'll correct to: It had not ocurred to me that anyone would /knowingly/ hire a programmer who submitted code that fails even to compile, as per ChatGPT. Anyone who would knowingly could well be delighted to use ChatGPT instead.
      - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        > It had not ocurred to me that anyone would /knowingly/ hire a programmer who They don't. Hiring happens before the first commit. This incredulity about programmers not all being consistently excellent is what makes it sound like your practical experience is very limited. Point of fact, you're here complaining that a product (ChatGPT 3.5) known to be substantively shitty is substantively shitty, and when people say "you know v4 is very significantly better, right?" you say "but that one isn't free". That gives a strong vibe that you know you're doing something bad and just don't care. Is that the vibe of consistent excellence? I would say no. > submitted code that fails even to compile You seem stuck on this business of not compiling when that failure mode is in fact extremely less consequential than literally any other failure mode. Wake me up when humans stop writing code that compiles and runs and tests just fine while doing the wrong thing literally all the time. Asking how anyone can blindly trust ChatGPT code is a fundamentally broken question. You can't blindly trust human code either. Trust has to be earned by past demonstrations of performance within the specific domain. A reviewer earns trust by consistently catching other peoples' mistakes. A programmer earns trust by consistently not making obvious mistakes in the first place. When I see a reviewer who consistently fails to catch other peoples' mistakes, I do not trust that reviewer. Giving a human more inherent trust than you give ChatGPT without experiencing sufficient past performance to have earned it would be your own failure. Humans are very stupid and fuck up constantly.
        chrisjj 2y ago
        > This incredulity about programmers not all being consistently excellent I wouldn't say programmers who compile are all excellent. And I didn't. > when people say "you know v4 is very significantly better, right?" you say "but that one isn't free". I think you must be mistaking another poster for me. I didn't say that either.