What value does a developer deliver when their entire process is done by an LLM?
Is there no desire for a creative process?
Is there no desire for a creative process?
I've used LLM to generate a lot of code recently on side projects. It's a 10x jump in productivity, but it can only reliably do 50-80% of the work, and the last tail needs editing, verification, setup with infrastructure, etc.
It won't read your mind, you need to iterate, re-create, and guide. And each of those 3 relies on a working knowledge of software, libraries, tech, and user experience to get right.
For now.
This is mind blowing. ‘Only 80%’ is a bonkers thing to say.
> For now.
The really scary part, right here.
Is there no desire for creative process if we use compilers?
A: Certainly, as an AI language model I'm happy to oblige. Here is the algorithm.
Human: I used a higher abstraction level! I have solved P == NP!
And you still need to have some model of the code structure, you need to understand what is going on to go back and forth with it. It takes care of a part of the work that is quite standard so you work in a different level, the analogy is with a compiler taking care of certain optimisation part so that you do not have to invent it every time. If you think that you can build anything meaningful with chatGPT with one line prompts I would suggest you try to engage yourself in the context of a language/paradigm you are only a novice with to see how it works and the parts that can be a good learning experience, engaging and entertaining. Do not use some obscure language and libraries because it will start hallucinating a lot though.
If you see toward the end where it generates Einstein's field equations, I had to start from real numbers (dedekind cuts) to real manifolds to pseudo-Reimannian manifolds to the curvature metric to the final thing.
"As an AI language model, I'm unable to create or prove the existence of a polynomial-time algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), because it is an NP-hard problem. This means that it is unlikely that such an algorithm exists, unless P = NP, which is an unsolved question in computer science.
However, I can suggest some approximation algorithms or heuristics that provide good solutions to the problem, even though they don't guarantee an optimal solution:"
> It was more like handholding a fresh grad who had absorbed all of human knowledge but needed someone to tie various parts of that knowledge to create something useful. Also ChatGPT is bad at dealing with abstractions beyond 2 layers.
> ChatGPT is definitely a productivity multiplier. I think it is rather a differential productivity multiplier, as it would enhance more the capabilities of those who already know more. If I did not understand deep learning and FAISS, or how projects are structured, I don't think I would have been able to pull this off. On the other hand, it also has some sort of a leveling effect—I have not worked on PyTorch in a while, have no idea of FAISS's new APIs, etc., but these gaps were filled in by ChatGPT.
The process is simplified so you can do it yourself if you have the right tool, instead of relying on dedicated professionals. The process can be traveling or designing and writing an app.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make with those edge cases, especially choking with a peanut, but driving your own car is extremely popular, despite those.
The cake mix really isn't "cooking," by my standards. Neither is microwaving popcorn. But it's an arbitrary line, I wouldn't defend it very hard.
A really smart AI would leave enough for the humans to do that they feel like they're still in charge.
Hand-rolled assembly wasn't really fun because you could type it and get a response instantly, rather than the creative good old days of mailing in punch cards and waiting weeks for a result.
Punch cards weren't fun either, because using a computer wasn't creative. Doing math by hand was.
Ad nauseum.
If you think that really fucking excellent portal-opening tools don't enable creativity, you just have a dim view of what creativity is.
They’re not going to be coding tomorrow.