3 ms·

That would require actually understanding types. GPTs don't understand anything - not really. They know the words and how the words connect to each other, and

That would require actually understanding types. GPTs don't understand anything - not really. They know the words and how the words connect to each other, and that's all. What you want - what everybody wants - is a GPT plus. In this case, GPT plus a compiler's parsing ability. I don't think that's what we have, though. What we have is a GPT that was trained on more and better code snippets. That's not good enough.

danielbln 2y ago
The tooling can take that over. Code has been generated that fails the type check? Let the type system of the IDE spit out diagnostics, feed it back to the LLM and let it output correct code. This can be made automatic, same with automated testing. The problem with people sneering at LLM assisted coding is that they miss the developments and advancements in tooling and integration. Copy pasting from the ChatGPT browser tab and hoping for the best is not where it's at anymore.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > Copy pasting from the ChatGPT browser tab and hoping for the best is not where it's at anymore. I mean, maybe there's a magic tool out there? The only one I've used (briefly, before turning it off in annoyance) is Copilot, which appears to pretty much just do that.
  - danielbln 2y ago
    I don't know about magic, but Aide.dev, Cursor, Windsurf for the editor, and aider.chat for the terminal do exactly that.
rsynnott 2y ago
Sure, but you could presumably have some logic like "Copilot wants to type the string `MyClass.non_existent_method()`. Does the type checker accept this line? If not, tell Copilot to try again." (I suspect possibly the reason that this does _not_ seem to be commonly done is that reliably producing _something_ (even if it's nonsense) is seen as more appealing to users than potentially not producing anything. And of course passing type checking is no guarantee of correctness.)
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > And of course passing type checking is no guarantee of correctness. No, it's not. It's a guarantee that it should at least compile, though. That is, it means certain kinds of incorrectness are ruled out.

danielbln 2y ago

The tooling can take that over. Code has been generated that fails the type check? Let the type system of the IDE spit out diagnostics, feed it back to the LLM and let it output correct code. This can be made automatic, same with automated testing. The problem with people sneering at LLM assisted coding is that they miss the developments and advancements in tooling and integration. Copy pasting from the ChatGPT browser tab and hoping for the best is not where it's at anymore.

rsynnott 2y ago
> Copy pasting from the ChatGPT browser tab and hoping for the best is not where it's at anymore. I mean, maybe there's a magic tool out there? The only one I've used (briefly, before turning it off in annoyance) is Copilot, which appears to pretty much just do that.
- danielbln 2y ago
  I don't know about magic, but Aide.dev, Cursor, Windsurf for the editor, and aider.chat for the terminal do exactly that.

rsynnott 2y ago

Sure, but you could presumably have some logic like "Copilot wants to type the string `MyClass.non_existent_method()`. Does the type checker accept this line? If not, tell Copilot to try again." (I suspect possibly the reason that this does _not_ seem to be commonly done is that reliably producing _something_ (even if it's nonsense) is seen as more appealing to users than potentially not producing anything. And of course passing type checking is no guarantee of correctness.)

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> And of course passing type checking is no guarantee of correctness. No, it's not. It's a guarantee that it should at least compile, though. That is, it means certain kinds of incorrectness are ruled out.