• AngryPancake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s really useful for programming. It’s not always right but it has good approaches and you can ask it to write tedious parts of your code like long switch statements. Most of my programming problems were solved because I just explained the problem like Rubber Duck Debugging.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          Depends on what you mean by “programming”.

          If you mean it like the neighboring comment, who is probably a mathematician or physicist who just needs to feed it a science paper and run some models to verify the premise, but doesn’t care about the code itself, it’s a good tool. They aren’t programmers and learning programming or using a programmer would only delay them.

          If you’re a professional programmer however your whole point is to create the most efficient specifications for the computer to do things. You cannot convey 100% of the spec to something like GPT so inevitably some is lost, so the end result is not the most efficient (or doesn’t even cover everything you needed).

          You can of course use it to get a head start but there are also boilerplate and templating tools and frameworks that cover the same purpose.

          Unlike the physicist, the code you make is the whole point, and it’s based in your knowledge of the subject matter, and you can’t replace it with GPT. Also, using GPT in this manner stunts your professional growth and damages you long term.

          It would be somewhat worth it if at least it accelerated some part of your work, and it can find its way into the tooling, but straight out replacing your brain with it ain’t it.

          For writing actual code and designing software it’s more trouble than it’s worth, it produces half-assed code that needs fixing.

          TLDR figure out ASAP if you really mean to be a programmer or some other type of specialist that only deals with programming incidentally.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            That level of condescension (rethink your life because you are making use of a tool I dont like) really isnt productive. You seem to be thinking that using AI as a tool to help you program is equivalent to turning your brain off and just copy and pasting code snippets, it isnt. It can be a good way to explore a language or framework you aren’t familiar with (when combined with the documentation) or to figure out general potential methods of solving a problem.

            • Hexarei@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Not the person you’re replying to, but my main hangup is that LLMs are just statistical models, they don’t know anything. As such, they very often hallucinate language features and libraries that don’t exist. They suggest functions that aren’t real and they are effectively always going to produce average code - And average code is horrible code.

              They can be useful for exploration and learning, sure. But lots of people are literally just copy-pasting code from LLMs - They just do it via an “accept copilot suggestion” button instead of actual copy paste.

              I used Copilot for months and I eventually stopped because I found that the vast majority of the time its suggestions are garbage, and I was constantly pausing while I typed to await the suggestions, which broke flow state and tired me out more then it ever helped.

              I’m still finding bugs it introduced months later. It’s great for unit tests, but that’s basically it in my case. I don’t let the AI write production code anymore

              • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Even for unit tests it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because they should describe what should be there and at best Copilot can describe what is there.

                The overlap may or may not be there but either way it’s a dicey proposition to allow Copilot to second guess the intent behind the code and make that guess the reference.

      • Mkengine@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        My two use cases are project brainstorming and boilerplate code, which saves a lot of time for me. For example sometimes I find an interesting paper and want to try it out in Python. If they did not provide code that will take some time and trial and error to get it running. Or I just copy the whole paper into ChatGPT and get an initial script that sometimes even works with it’s first try. But that is not the point, I can do the last steps myself, it really is a time saver for me with regards to programming.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I use it for programming questions.

        • immediate replies so I don’t have to switch tasks while praying for an answer

        • no suggestions that I just do the whole thing differently

        • infinite patience