It should not be used to replace programmers. But it can be very useful when used by programmers who know what they're doing. ("do you see any flaws in this code?" / "what could be useful approaches to tackle X, given constraints A, B and C?"). At worst, it can be used as rubber duck debugging that sometimes gives useful advice or when no coworker is available.
admin
joined 1 year ago
It also works great for book or movie recommendations, and I think a lot of gpu resources are spent on text roleplay.
Or you could, you know, ask it if gasoline is useful for food recipes and then make a clickbait article about how useless LLMs are.
Not before llamas though. They be the most og.
This guy gets it.
ChatGPT is not good enough to use as a substitute for (whatever), but can be a useful tool for someone who can quantify its output.
Thanks, that's a relief!
I think they provide a very reasonable reality check / a bit of reflection. And it sounds like you could use one, if you're surprised that Facebook still exists.
Same. While Linus is part of the problem for using practices he claims to disagree with, I'd rather be part of the solution by not rewarding it with attention.
That's a use. But not their only use.
Counter point: Poe's law.
Don't worry, they'll just delete the lemmy post after they got their share of clickbait clocks, and then repost it later with a slightly less inflammatory title.
Yeah, I saw. But when I'm stuck on a programming issue, I have a couple of options:
Sure, LLMs may not be perfect, but not having them as an option is worse, and way slower.
In my experience - even when the code it generates is wrong, it will still send you in the right direction concerning the approach. And if it keeps spewing out nonsense, that's usually an indication that what you want is not possible.