Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
I'm a 10 year pro, and I've changed my workflows completely to include both chatgpt and copilot. I have found that for the mundane, simple, common patterns copilot's accuracy is close to 9/10 correct, especially in my well maintained repos.
It seems like the accuracy of simple answers is directly proportional to the precision of my function and variable names.
I haven't typed a full for loop in a year thanks to copilot, I treat it like an intent autocomplete.
Chatgpt on the other hand is remarkably useful for super well laid out questions, again with extreme precision in the terms you lay out. It has helped me in greenfield development with unique and insightful methodologies to accomplish tasks that would normally require extensive documentation searching.
Anyone who claims llms are a nothingburger is frankly wrong, with the right guidance my output has increased dramatically and my error rate has dropped slightly. I used to be able to put out about 1000 quality lines of change in a day (a poor metric, but a useful one) and my output has expanded to at least double that using the tools we have today.
Are LLMs miraculous? No, but they are incredibly powerful tools in the right hands.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On the other hand, using ChatGPT for your Lemmy comments sticks out like a sore thumb
If you're careless with your prompting, sure. The "default style" of ChatGPT is widely known at this point. If you want it to sound different you'll need to provide some context to tell it what you want it to sound like.
Or just use one of the many other LLMs out there to mix things up a bit. When I'm brainstorming I usually use Chatbot Arena to bounce ideas around, it's a page where you can send a prompt to two randomly-selected LLMs and then by voting on which gave a better response you help rank them on a leaderboard. This way I get to run my prompts through a lot of variety.
Refreshing to see a reasonable response to coding with AI. Never used chatgpt for it but my copilot experience mirrors yours.
I find it shocking how many developers seem to think so many negative thoughts about it programming with AI. Some guy recently said "everyone in my shop finds it useless". Hard for me to believe they actually tried copilot if they think that
As a fellow pro, who has no issues calling myself a pro, because I am...
You're spot on.
The stuff most people think AI is going to do - it's not.
But as an insanely convenient auto-complete, modern LLMs absolutely shine!
I've found that the better I've gotten at writing prompts and giving enough information for it to not hallucinate, the better answers I get. It has to be treated as what it is, a calculator that can talk, make sure it has all of the information and it will find the answer.
One thing I have found to be super helpful with GPT4o is the ability to give it full API pages so it can update and familiarise it's self with what it's working with.
I think AI is good with giving answers to well defined problems. The issue is that companies keep trying to throw it at poorly defined problems and the results are less useful. I work in the cybersecurity space and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a vendor talking about AI in their products. It's the new, big marketing buzzword. The problem is that finding the bad stuff on a network is not a well defined problem. So instead, you get the unsupervised models faffing about, generating tons and tons of false positives. The only useful implementations of AI I've seen in these tools actually mirrors you own: they can be scary good at generating data queries from natural language prompts. Which is, once again, a well defined problem.
Overall, AI is a tool and used in the right way, it's useful. It gets a bad rap because companies keep using it in bad ways and the end result can be worse than not having it at all.
In fairness, it's possible that if 100 companies try seemingly bad ideas, 1 of them will turn out to be extremely profitable.
Exactly. When someone says that it either indicates to me that they ignorant (like they aren't a programmer or haven't used it) or they are a programmer who has used it, but are not good at all at integrating new tools into their development process.
Yup. The problem I see now is that every mistake an ai makes is parroted over and over here and held up as an example of why the tech is garbage. But it's cherry picking. Yes, they make mistakes, I often scratch my head at the ai results from Google and know to double check it. But the number of times it has pointed me in the right direction way faster than search results has shown to me already how useful it is.
Omg, I feel sorry for the people cleaning up after those codebases later. Maintaing that kind of careless "quality" lines of code is going to be a job for actual veterans.
And when we're all retired or dead, the whole world will be a pile of alien artifacts from a time when people were still able to figure stuff out, and llms will still be ridiculously inefficient for precise tasks, just like today.
https://youtu.be/dDUC-LqVrPU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/dDUC-LqVrPU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You wish. The sheer idea of calling yourself a "pro" disqualifies you. People who actually code and know what they are doing wouldn't dream of giving themselves a label beyond "coder" / "programmer" / "SW Dev". Because they don't have to. You are a muppet.
Here we observe a pro gatekeeper in their natural habitat…
Hey! So you may have noticed that you got downvoted into oblivion here. It is because of the unnecessary amount of negativity in your comment.
In communication, there are two parts - how it is delivered, and how it is received. In this interaction, you clearly stated your point: giving yourself the title of pro oftentimes means the person is not a pro.
What they received, however, is far different. They received: ugh this sweaty asshole is gatekeeping coding.
If your goal was to convince this person not to call themselves a pro going forward, this may have been a failed communication event.
while your measured response is appreciated, I hardly consider a few dozen downvotes relevant, nor do I care in this case. It's telling that those who did respond to my comment seem to assume I would consider myself a "pro" when that's 1) nothing I said and 2) it should be clear from my comment that I consider the expression cringy. Outside memeable content, only idiots call themselves a "pro". If something is my profession, I could see someone calling themselves a "professional " (not that I would use it), but professional has a profoundly distinct ring to it, because it also refers to a code of conduct / a way to conduct business.
"I'm a pro" and anything like it is just hot air coming from bullshitters who are mostly responsible for enshittification of any given technology.
A lot of rage for a small amount of confidence
elon?