I actually asked chatGPT about a specific issue I had and solved a while back. It was one of these issues where it looked like a simple naive solution would be sufficient, but due to different conditions that fails, you have to go with a more complex solution. So, I asked about this to see what it would answer.
And it went with the simpler solution, but with some adjustments. The code also didn’t compile. But it looked interesting enough, for me to question my self. Maybe it was just me that failed the simpler solution, so I actually tried to fix the compile errors to see if I could get it working. But the more I tried to fix its code the more obvious it got that it didn’t have a clue about what it was doing.
However, due to the confidence and ability to make things look plausible, it sent me on a wild goose chase. And this is why I am not using LLM for programming. They are basically overconfident junior devs, that likes mansplaining.
It’s not always right but it saves me tonnes of time at work, usually when I want to do something simple in a language or environment I’m not totally familiar with.
I’m not saying it’s going to take anyone’s job anytime soon but it’s a lot quicker to get something tailor made for your problem than going to stack overflow. Everyone should use the tools that work for them but don’t sleep on this stuff, like any tool it’s really helpful once you know how to use it.
Agreed. But I think it is utterly useless if you aren’t experienced enough to tell if it is bullshitting. Almost every time I have asked for a little adjustment, it just makes something up that looks good on first glance. My favorite is when it invents python libraries that magically handle all the difficult stuff.
But man is it useful for my crappy little bash scripts or regex.
They forgot vasking an llm for help fixing it for them.
I actually asked chatGPT about a specific issue I had and solved a while back. It was one of these issues where it looked like a simple naive solution would be sufficient, but due to different conditions that fails, you have to go with a more complex solution. So, I asked about this to see what it would answer. And it went with the simpler solution, but with some adjustments. The code also didn’t compile. But it looked interesting enough, for me to question my self. Maybe it was just me that failed the simpler solution, so I actually tried to fix the compile errors to see if I could get it working. But the more I tried to fix its code the more obvious it got that it didn’t have a clue about what it was doing. However, due to the confidence and ability to make things look plausible, it sent me on a wild goose chase. And this is why I am not using LLM for programming. They are basically overconfident junior devs, that likes mansplaining.
It’s not always right but it saves me tonnes of time at work, usually when I want to do something simple in a language or environment I’m not totally familiar with.
It can reliably copy the simple things in it’s training data from stackoverflow.
But at that point, why not just go to stackoverflow instead?
I’m not saying it’s going to take anyone’s job anytime soon but it’s a lot quicker to get something tailor made for your problem than going to stack overflow. Everyone should use the tools that work for them but don’t sleep on this stuff, like any tool it’s really helpful once you know how to use it.
Agreed. But I think it is utterly useless if you aren’t experienced enough to tell if it is bullshitting. Almost every time I have asked for a little adjustment, it just makes something up that looks good on first glance. My favorite is when it invents python libraries that magically handle all the difficult stuff. But man is it useful for my crappy little bash scripts or regex.