3 ms·
Here's an idea: If AI like this is so brilliant and can think for itself, why don't we just tell it to come up with its own next iteration? Surely if it can wri
by lionkor 2y ago
Here's an idea: If AI like this is so brilliant and can think for itself, why don't we just tell it to come up with its own next iteration? Surely if it can write code for medical devices, cars, planes, etc. (where no doubt junior engineers are extensively using it), then why not AI?
Cant we just tell ChatGPT to make e.g. TensorFlow faster, better, cleaner? Why do people put in so much work anymore, if the AI is so damn good?
- anonzzzies 2y agoThe author of Aider uses Aider a lot to work on Aider itself. He measures everything; https://aider.chat/HISTORY.html https://aider.chat/HISTORY.html
- jsheard 2y agoBecause it's not that damn good. Not even close.
- bedobi 2y agoshhh don't ask legitimate questions! only hype now!
- lionkor 2y agoThis looks amazing. Simply incredible what we are able to do. I'm ready for the next industrial revolution -- It's happening, now!
- thornewolf 2y agoI believe you are attacking a strawman here.
- lionkor 2y agoI believe it's not solving a real problem. I believe that the human skills of reasoning, logical thinking, etc. make it possible for any able minded human to do the things I just mentioned, given time and money is provided. AI can't do that. Let's call that process "programming". It cant do programming. It pretends to program.
- thornewolf 2y agoYou are entitled to interpret the word "programming" in multiple different ways depending on the context of the conversation. What you propose here as "programming" is valid but not comprehensive of what everyone may think of when considering the "programming" process. By many definitions of "programming", these AI tools are indeed programming. In the same way, many definitions of "reasoning, ..." may include the AI tools in them. However, there are alternate definitions (reasonable in their own way) in which it is clear these AI tools fall short. So, I think you are proposing an argument of semantics but presenting it as if it is an argument on actual capabilities of these AI tools. In general, we all are in agreement on what these systems are capable of.
- ken47 2y agoThese AI tools are able to do a small subset of what a professional human is able to do, with greatly reduced flexibility, e.g. tasks like leetcode where there is an abundance of concentrated training data. I would bet that the current paradigm in ChatGPT will never be able to replace a minimally competent human at real world programming - the kind of programs people actually pay for. Let’s see.
- pphysch 2y ago> I would bet that the current paradigm in ChatGPT will never be able to replace a minimally competent human at real world programming - the kind of programs people actually pay for. Let’s see. Depends on definition of "minimally competent". There WILL be over-engineered enterprise solutions that employ 10x more AI-enabled code monkeys than is strictly required. Think about it: we can create a "fully automated AI coder" and then hire another FTE (or team) to handhold and clean up after it. It will be done. It must be done.
- samrolken 2y agoWhy must LLMs or “AI” beat or match the smartest and most capable humans to be considered to solve a real problem? There’s been a lot of technology invented and in widespread use that solves real problems without having human-like intelligence.
- ken47 2y agoDon’t turn off the money spigot with your “questions.”