Using an LLM yesterday to code, there was no way I’d be proficient with the workflow if I wasn’t an experienced programmer.
I’ve never seen code look so correct, sort of work but be so strangely crap.
I’ve never seen code look so correct, sort of work but be so strangely crap.
This is my experience of GPT generated code too. It needs refactoring as soon as it's generated for me to be happy with it.
The real question is whether that actually matters though. If an AI tool is writing ugly code that works, and the 'developer' is only interacting with that code through prompts, then what the code looks like is irrevelant. No one will see it. It'd be like worrying about what the inside of a Photoshop file or a Word doc looks like.
I think we're some way off using AI to write and modify code like it's an opaque file, but once we're there it won't matter if that code is ugly and terrible. No one will look.
Complication meaning something slightly beyond changing variable names: you need a different if condition, the snippet doesn't contain the required import, the version has advanced slightly.
Google can do that too. (Well, it could if it wasn't permanently broken from SEO spam and monetization efforts.)
Which is the key takeaway: the "chat" part of ChatGPT is a stupid smoke and mirrors gimmick. The salient useful parts are the large and well-curated training database.
Which is technically quite possible to do without "AI" or text generators; though possibly not realistic from a business sense. There's no business case for "information search without spam and ads".