don't you see that all these cool people in tech are jumping off the bridge, aren't you curious to jump off too?
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] me, frowning at his unhappiness at being force femmed: “I thought programmers were curious?”
-
@aud @cwebber I tried copilot once on a throwaway project because I was desperately looking for a way to keep going with my research and hobby projects while recovering from a neck injury and because someone I respect swore by it at the time, and frankly I'm still flabbergasted people find it useful because literally everything it shat out needed to be rewritten and it wasn't worth having people cast doubt on whether or not any of the code was mine.
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] Right? That's my experience, as well. I tried it out once while working at Microsoft and was like... this is useless? It either gets stuff wrong, or at best it gets it right but it saves me no time as I still need to understand what it's doing, so either way I still have the mental effort of working through the problem to build a mental model. And that's a thing I enjoy, actually! Part of what I enjoy about programming is building a mental model of what I want and then creating it.
But even in the best case scenario where it just works and you don't have to bother working through the code it gave you, why would you assume that someone uninterested in offloading mental work... isn't curious? Isn't that the exact opposite? If you HAD to make a comment about curiosity one way or the other, wouldn't you think the person interested in doing a bunch of mental work was the curious one? -
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] short answer: no
longer answer: they do have uses, but given the excessive energy cost and the user's tendency to believe anything it says, the fact that it is frequently wrong make them exceptionally inadvisable to use. If you already know the exact problem you're trying to 'solve' and you know what the correct answer is, you can decide whether its output is correct. However, you've just boiled a lake to get it rather than just writing it yourself. And if you do not know what the correct answer is, how can you trust that the output is correct?
Even for code: as we well know, 'it compiles' does not mean it's doing what it says on the tin. So now, rather than doing the work of writing code, you've simply transformed it into auditing the code, which requires basically the same mental effort... except you've boiled a lake to do so. -
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I'd like to point out that I'm seeing "programming jobs" that are just about auditing the output of code. They certainly do not pay nearly as well as a developer salary (they're hourly and contract, as well) but require the exact same skill set. They're inherently about devaluing the labor.
-
Sandriver :verifiedenby:replied to Asta [AMP] last edited by
@[email protected] "What is the use case for LLMs?"
"You are a method actor trying to get into the head space of a Captain Planet villain." -
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] yeah. If LinkedIn allowed me to downvote or block jobs, I would.
