4 ms·

You are entitled to interpret the word "programming" in multiple different ways depending on the context of the conversation. What you propose here as "programm

You 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 ago
These 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.