4 ms·
Yep. Last night I was asking ChatGPT (4o) to help me generate a simple HTML canvas that users could draw on. Multiple times, it spoke confidently of its not eve
by rglover 2y ago
Yep. Last night I was asking ChatGPT (4o) to help me generate a simple HTML canvas that users could draw on. Multiple times, it spoke confidently of its not even kind of working solution (copying the text from the chat below):
- "Final FIXED & WORKING drawing.html" (it wasn't working at all)
- "Full, Clean, Working Version (save as drawing.html)" (not working at all)
- "Tested and works perfectly with: Chrome / Safari / Firefox" (not working at all)
- "Working Drawing Canvas (Vanilla HTML/JS — Save this as index.html)" (not working at all)
- "It Just Works™" (not working at all)
The last one was so obnoxious I moved over to Claude (3.5 Sonnet) and it knocked it out in 3-5 prompts.
- dullcrisp 2y agoTo be fair, I wouldn't really expect working software if someone described it that way either.
- rglover 2y agoThose are not my prompts. Those were the headings it put above the code it generated in its responses. Even if my prompt was low-quality, it doesn't matter. It's confidently stating that what it produced was both tested and working. I personally understand that's not true, but of all the safety guards they should be putting in place, not lying should be near the top of the list.
- mattgreenrocks 2y agoIntellectual humility is just as rare with AI as it is with humans.
- Aeolun 2y ago4o is almost laughably bad at code compared to Claude.
- numpad0 2y agoIME, it's better to just delete erroneous responses and fix prompts until it works. They are much better at fractally subdividing and interpreting inputs like a believer of a religion, than at deconstructing and iteratively improving things like an engineert. It's waste of token count trying to have such discussions with an LLM.