7 ms·

Completely agree. I find it fails miserably at business logic, which is where we spend most of our time on. But does great at generic stuff, which is already tr

Completely agree. I find it fails miserably at business logic, which is where we spend most of our time on. But does great at generic stuff, which is already trivial to find on stack overflow.

Hedepig 2y ago
Have you had a go with the o1 range of models?
- withinboredom 2y ago
  Yesterday, I got into an argument on the internet (shocking, I know), so I pulled out an old gravitation simulator that I had built for a game. I had chatGPT give me the solar system parameters, which worked fine, but my simulation had an issue that I actually never resolved. So, working with the AI, I asked it to convert the simulation to constant-time (it was currently locked to render path -- it's over a decade old). Needless to say, it wrote code that set the simulation to be realtime ... in other words, we'd be waiting one year to see the planets go around the sun. After I pointed that out, it figured out what to do and still got things wrong or made some terrible readability decisions. I ended up using it as inspiration instead and then was able to have the simulation step at one second resolution (which was required for a stable orbit) but render at 60fps and compress a year into a second.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wruza 2y ago
    This sums up my experience as well. You can get an idea or just a direction from it, but itself AI stumbles upon its own legs instantly in any non-tutorial task. Sometimes I envy and at the same time feel sorry for successful AI-enabled devs, cause it feels like they do boilerplate and textbook features all day. What a release if something can write it for you.
PUSH_AX 2y ago
This might be a promoting issue, my experience is very different, I’ve written entire services using it.
- miningape 2y ago
  Might be that they work in a much more complex codebase, or a language/framework/religion that has less text written on it. Might also be that they (are required to) hold code to a higher standard than you and can't just push half-baked slop to prod.
  - PUSH_AX 2y ago
    Without knowing much about my standards and work you’ve just assumed it’s half baked slop. You’re wrong.
    - miningape 2y ago
      Without knowing much about my prompts and work you’ve just assumed it’s why AI gives me bad results. You’re wrong. (Can you see why this is a bad argument?) Don't get me wrong I love sloppy code as much as the next cowboy, but don't delude yourself or others when the emperor doesn't have clothes on.
    - lomase 2y ago
      IA generated content is the definition of slop for most people.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        Which is deeply sad, because this both tarnishes good output and gives a free pass to the competitor - shit "content" generated by humans. AI models only recently started to match that in quantity. But then again, most of software industry exists to create and support creation of human slop - advertising, content marketing, all that - so there's bound to be some double standards and salary-blindness present.
      - 2y ago
rco8786 2y ago
> But does great at generic stuff, which is already trivial to find on stack overflow. The major difference is that with Cursor you just hit "tab", and that thing is done. Vs breaking focus to open up a browser, searching SO, finding an applicable answer (hopefully), translating it into your editor, then reloading context in your head to keep moving.
- skydhash 2y ago
  The benefits of exploring is finding alternatives and knowing about gotchas. And knowing more about both the problem spaces and how the language/library/framework solves it.
  - literalAardvark 2y ago
    I've had o1 respond with a better alternative before. And it's only going to get better.
  - rco8786 2y ago
    I mean sure, but this is exactly the argument against using a calculator and doing all your math by hand also.
    - skydhash 2y ago
      There was a thread about that and gist was: A calculator is a great tool because it's deterministic and the failures are known (mostly related to precision); It eliminates the entire need of doing computation by hand and you don't have to babysit it though the computation process with "you're an expert mathematician..."; Also it's just a tool and you still need to learn basic mathematics to use it. The equivalent to that is a good IDE that offers good navigation (project and dependencies), great feedback (highlighting, static code analysis,..), semantic manipulation, integration with external tooling, and the build/test/deploy process.
      - rco8786 2y ago
        Yes, I think agree. And when you use a calculator and get a result that doesn't make sense to you, you step in as the human and try and figure out what went wrong. With the calculator, it's typically a human error that causes the issue. With AI, it's an AI error. But in practice it's not a different workflow. Give inputs -> some machine does work much faster than you could -> use your human knowledge to verify outputs -> move forward or go back to step 1.
_thisdot 2y ago
My experience has been different. My major use case for AI tools these days is writing tests. I've found that the generated test cases are very much in line with the domain. It might be because we've been strictly using domain driven design principles It even generates test cases that fail to show what we've missed

Completely agree. I find it fails miserably at business logic, which is where we spend most of our time on. But does great at generic stuff, which is already trivial to find on stack overflow.

Hedepig 2y ago

Have you had a go with the o1 range of models?

withinboredom 2y ago
Yesterday, I got into an argument on the internet (shocking, I know), so I pulled out an old gravitation simulator that I had built for a game. I had chatGPT give me the solar system parameters, which worked fine, but my simulation had an issue that I actually never resolved. So, working with the AI, I asked it to convert the simulation to constant-time (it was currently locked to render path -- it's over a decade old). Needless to say, it wrote code that set the simulation to be realtime ... in other words, we'd be waiting one year to see the planets go around the sun. After I pointed that out, it figured out what to do and still got things wrong or made some terrible readability decisions. I ended up using it as inspiration instead and then was able to have the simulation step at one second resolution (which was required for a stable orbit) but render at 60fps and compress a year into a second.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wruza 2y ago
  This sums up my experience as well. You can get an idea or just a direction from it, but itself AI stumbles upon its own legs instantly in any non-tutorial task. Sometimes I envy and at the same time feel sorry for successful AI-enabled devs, cause it feels like they do boilerplate and textbook features all day. What a release if something can write it for you.

PUSH_AX 2y ago

This might be a promoting issue, my experience is very different, I’ve written entire services using it.

miningape 2y ago
Might be that they work in a much more complex codebase, or a language/framework/religion that has less text written on it. Might also be that they (are required to) hold code to a higher standard than you and can't just push half-baked slop to prod.
- PUSH_AX 2y ago
  Without knowing much about my standards and work you’ve just assumed it’s half baked slop. You’re wrong.
  - miningape 2y ago
    Without knowing much about my prompts and work you’ve just assumed it’s why AI gives me bad results. You’re wrong. (Can you see why this is a bad argument?) Don't get me wrong I love sloppy code as much as the next cowboy, but don't delude yourself or others when the emperor doesn't have clothes on.
  - lomase 2y ago
    IA generated content is the definition of slop for most people.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Which is deeply sad, because this both tarnishes good output and gives a free pass to the competitor - shit "content" generated by humans. AI models only recently started to match that in quantity. But then again, most of software industry exists to create and support creation of human slop - advertising, content marketing, all that - so there's bound to be some double standards and salary-blindness present.
    - 2y ago

rco8786 2y ago

> But does great at generic stuff, which is already trivial to find on stack overflow. The major difference is that with Cursor you just hit "tab", and that thing is done. Vs breaking focus to open up a browser, searching SO, finding an applicable answer (hopefully), translating it into your editor, then reloading context in your head to keep moving.

skydhash 2y ago
The benefits of exploring is finding alternatives and knowing about gotchas. And knowing more about both the problem spaces and how the language/library/framework solves it.
- literalAardvark 2y ago
  I've had o1 respond with a better alternative before. And it's only going to get better.
- rco8786 2y ago
  I mean sure, but this is exactly the argument against using a calculator and doing all your math by hand also.
  - skydhash 2y ago
    There was a thread about that and gist was: A calculator is a great tool because it's deterministic and the failures are known (mostly related to precision); It eliminates the entire need of doing computation by hand and you don't have to babysit it though the computation process with "you're an expert mathematician..."; Also it's just a tool and you still need to learn basic mathematics to use it. The equivalent to that is a good IDE that offers good navigation (project and dependencies), great feedback (highlighting, static code analysis,..), semantic manipulation, integration with external tooling, and the build/test/deploy process.
    - rco8786 2y ago
      Yes, I think agree. And when you use a calculator and get a result that doesn't make sense to you, you step in as the human and try and figure out what went wrong. With the calculator, it's typically a human error that causes the issue. With AI, it's an AI error. But in practice it's not a different workflow. Give inputs -> some machine does work much faster than you could -> use your human knowledge to verify outputs -> move forward or go back to step 1.

_thisdot 2y ago

My experience has been different. My major use case for AI tools these days is writing tests. I've found that the generated test cases are very much in line with the domain. It might be because we've been strictly using domain driven design principles It even generates test cases that fail to show what we've missed