Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

> Sumplete was created in a few hours by ChatGPT

I think this is an interesting note at the end, it's clear that the whole "conversation" hasn't been posted, and not clear how many prompts were needed to finish it. A proficient developer would be able to develop this same app to the same level (once they have the idea) in a couple of hours without ChatGPT too.

It would be super interesting to see a full screen recording of the process (or a similar one). What was the total word count of all prompts, how does that compare to the code size?

Don't get me wrong, this is incredible and inspiring (I'm regularly using ChatGPT and Copilot). But I think the post doesn't critically analyse the process well enough.

View on HN

> A proficient developer would be able to develop this same app to the same level (once they have the idea) in a couple of hours without ChatGPT too.

I mean... the whole point is that you don't need to be that proficient to use ChatGPT.

If ChatGPT is much better than a proficient developer, you and I wouldn't be surfing HN, but on the street protesting for universal income.

Yes, I think it's kinda rude (in a way) to cut out 99% of the ChatGPT conversation, because it gives people the impression that ChatGPT is even more magical than it actually is

I thought the article recently about the guy who used Mindjourney (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/viral...) to generate a bunch of images which people on Instagram loved was fascinating.

It was quite amazing how much actual manual work was going into some (not all) of those images in the end.

A lot of processing in photoshop etc. I actually started to think that really, he was doing art, just not using a brush.

Yup, that's why the naysayers will always naysay.

Artists will use ML as engineers have been using ML such as in https://youtu.be/aR5N2Jl8k14?t=198.

I can understand the clash with artists not wanting their work absorbed by the machine, and I agree to a point: if the model reproduces their art 1:1 (or close to) then that's bad! For the artist and the model! If it simply takes inspiration for the type of art/style etc from other artists' work, well, that's what artists do themselves already! That's literally how people learn to be artists.

But also, for an artist to complain that it's not really artistic, then where do we draw the line? They'll use a brush in photoshop that they don't have total control over the behaviour of and that's apparently fine.

From my experience, most time is spent in the generate-copy-paste-compile-error cycle. Especially for strict/strongly-typed languages, checking for programming errors can be done by a machine, so this process can be automated (not for logical errors, of course).

Isn't that what IDEs already do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com