3 ms·

LOL, are you kidding me? LLMs including the gpt family copilot uses are very good at sneaking in these sorts of thing.

• FanaHOVA 2y ago
  Show me 1 example.
  • creesch 2y ago
    Show me that copilot never makes a mistake or introduces variables that never have been initialized...
    • brigadier132 2y ago
      This is a strawman, he never said it didn't make mistakes.
      • creesch 2y ago
        Oh for crying out loud, I obviously mean these specific mistakes. If you have worked in any capacity with LLMs like this you would have seen them variables or suddenly switch up the convention of how they're written. Certainly if you are in a conversation mode after a few back and forths this happens from time to time. I am just not going to spend my time digging to previous prompts of code I might not want to share just to satisfy a random internet person .
        • brigadier132 2y ago
          The models I've used don't make typos on variable names that already exist in the context. Typos are not the failure mode, this is literally the easiest text prediction task they can do.
        • sixfiveotwo 2y ago
          What you guys probably want to do instead is get to a common definition of what a typo is. Personally, I understand it as a typographic error, which is a fancy way of saying a spelling mistake (a mistake on a letter), not a mistake where one use a word for another. Maybe you meant the latter?
        • FanaHOVA 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • fzeroracer 2y ago
            Not the OP. I have certainly seen LLM coding tools generate blocks of code with misspelled variables and typos. Trying to shove someone into a box of being a cynic because they have had bad personal experiences with tools is a good way to ensure people filter out your opinions.
        • Mashimo 2y ago
          I, for one, have not have this experience with LLM creating new variable names when they already defined one. Lots of mistakes, but never this one.
  • shakna 2y ago
    There's more than one mistake in the code given, and I tried just once. "Create Python code for iterating a file with a cache." class CachedFileIterator: def __init__(self, file_path): self.file_path = file_path self.cache = [] # List to store cashed lines self.current_index = 0 # Index for the current line to read def _read_lines_from_file(self): """Read lines from the file and cache them.""" with open(self.file_path, 'r') as openFile: for line in f: self.cache.append(line.strip()) # Strip newline characters and save to cache def __iter__(self): """Return the iterator object itself.""" return self def __next__(self): """Return the next line in the iteration.""" if self.current_index < len(self.cache): result = self.cache[self.current_index] self.current_index += 1 return result else: # If we reach the end of the cache, we read more lines from the file if necessary if len(self.cache) == 0: # Cache is empty, read file self._read_lines_from_file() if self.current_index < len(self.cache): result = self.cache[self.current_index] self.current_index += 1 return result else: # If still no lines, we stop iteration raise StopIteration # Example usage: if __name__ == "__main__": file_path = 'example.txt' # Replace with your file path iterator = CacheingFileIterator(file_path) for line in iterator: print(line)
    • yifanl 2y ago
      Garbage code is bad enough, but it's not like people have never had to walk juniors through mistakes before LLMs. But this is actually so much worse for that same reason - the type of developer who'd submit Copilot output (I can call it that, as it's definitely not code) for a PR is unable to respond to any comment beyond asking Copilot again and wasting everyone's time with 6 more rounds of reviews. I've literally had to write test cases for someone else and told them "You can't ask for another code review until your code passes these."
      • cutemonster 2y ago