3 ms·
Not true. Current research is that experts are better with a ChatGTP, and beginners worse. An expert knows what to ask, and a beginner juat flails around. Tool
by wisty 2y ago
Not true. Current research is that experts are better with a ChatGTP, and beginners worse. An expert knows what to ask, and a beginner juat flails around.
Tools like calculators, ChatGTP, Google, and chainsaws are often force magnifiers for experts, and a danger for beginners.
If you have an idea of what you are trying to do at a deep level then they are great, but beginners don't, they usually just use them as a shortcut to avoid needing any real understanding of the space, and just get "the answer".
Although in some ways youre
right. There will need to be changes in the skills we value, just churning out words, or calculating large sums and interating obscure trig functions will lose value.
- ffsm8 2y ago> Current research is that experts are better with a ChatGTP, and beginners worse. Current research being your opinion? Because literally every expert I personally know to be competent says that they're essentially garbage producers and don't use them beyond occasionally checking if they've improved. And no, they haven't. The only way to get decent code from them is to be so specific that you'd be able to produce the same code in a fraction of the time you need to add all the context necessary for the LLM to figure it out. It's like coding with a junior. Thay can produce great code too. It's just gonna take a lot of handholding if complexity skyrocks. The only place llms got a foot hold is with generating stock art that's mostly soulless marketing material. This "industry" is going to crash so hard in the next 3 years
- john_the_writer 2y agoAgreed.. All the co-pilot devs where I work are the juniors. Most of us just type the code we want.
- wisty 2y agoExperts are often slower at starting to learn new tricks, because they don't need them, but are better at using them once they do. But for junior devs, it's often the blind leading the blind. That said, I don't actually use ChatGTP much. I'm just pretty sure I should in some areas.
- orwin 2y agoNot a junior, but I find it useful. Generating test data, adding documentation template for functions (which tbh is less useful when you specify types everywhere, even inferred types) and recently, after reading a HN comment, 'rubber ducking'. Which is great, because almost each time I need the rubber duck technique was for real obvious and easy issues I overcomplicated (last was induced by a naming change), and ChatGPT is quite good at that.
- wisty 2y agoSorry, it was from a comment, metrics showed senior devs improved, juniors didn't. But if you want a sketch solution quickly, know the requirements, and can fix the silly mistakes it's a useful tool. Especially if you are doing something where you are rusty, or are used to a slightly different framework or language. They are like a super fast but slightly clueless junior, who can hammer out mostly correct boilerplate. Not someone you want unsupervised or training a junior, but usefully in some ways. And yes, boilerplate has disadvantages, but it has its place.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago>The only way to get decent code from them is to be so specific that you'd be able to produce the same code in a fraction of the time you need to add all the context necessary for the LLM to figure it out. You’re not using it to be better than yourself though in your domain of expertise though. For example if I need a very specific bash script, I can describe it to ChatGPT and get a good result far faster than I can learn the appropriate bash. Or if I need a summary of all the config options for some package. You can also use it to speed up your own learning. But this all depends on you being able to check the out put.
- aabbcc1241 2y agoseems it's more about active thinking vs just get the job done mindset