zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
I feel like I am missing something or holding it wrong, I would personally love if we had a tool that i could describe problems at a high level and out comes a high quality fully functional app. Most software is shit and if we are honest with ourselves there is a huge amount of inessential complexity in this field built up over the years. I would gladly never spend weeks building something someone else already built in a slightly different way because it doesn’t meet requirements, I would gladly not end up in rabbit holes wrestling with some dependency compatibility issue when I am just trying to create value for the business. If the tools get better the software gets better and the compexity we can manage gets larger. That said while these tools are incredibly impressive, having messed with this for a few days to try to even do basic stuff, what am I missing here? It is a nice starting point and can be a productivity boost but the code produced is often wrong and it feels a long way away from automating my day to day work.

>>mrbomb+ys
> I would personally love if we had a tool that i could describe problems at a high level and out comes a high quality fully functional app.

I'm sure your employer would love that more than you. That's the issue here.

> That said while these tools are incredibly impressive, having messed with this for a few days to try to even do basic stuff, what am I missing here? It is a nice starting point and can be a productivity boost but the code produced is often wrong and it feels a long way away from automating my day to day work.

This is the first irritation of such a tool and it's already very competent. I'm not even sure I'm better at writing code than GPT, the only thing I can do that it can't is compile and test the code I produce. If you asked me to create a React app from a two sentence prompt and didn't allow me to search the internet, compile or test it I'm sure I'd probably make more mistakes than GPT to be honest.

>>kypro+4u
If I had the tool that did that, I would be the employer!

>>alt227+Nu
Exactly code has always been a means to an end not the end itself. Further our industry has been more than happy to automate inefficiency away from other fields, feels pretty hypocritical to want it to stop for ours.