zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe of a bit of software that chains words to another based on some statistical model.

The sad truth is that ChatGPT is about as good an AI as ELIZA was in 1966, it's just better (granted: much better) at hiding its total lack of actual human understanding. It's nothing more than an expensive parlor trick, IMHO.

Github CoPilot? Great, now I have to perform the most mentally taxing part of developing software, namely understanding other people's code (or my own from 6 months ago...) while writing new code. I'm beyond thrilled ...

So, no, I don't have an AI fatigue, because we absolutely have no AI anywhere. But I have a massive bullshit and hype fatigue that is getting worse all the time.

>>dual_d+ha
I agree. I didn't understand the big deal that it passed a google interview either. IMO, that said more about the uselessness of the interview than the 'AI'.

Co-pilot has been semi-useful. It's faster than search SO, but like you said, I still have to review all the code and it's often wrong in subtle ways.

>>matwoo+en
This is the meat of the issue - ChatGPT is exposing certain things a susceptible to bullshit attacks; humans have just been relatively bad at those.

It will turn out to be a useful tool for those who know what they’re asking about so they can check the answer quickly; but it will be USED by tons of people who don’t have a way of verifying the answers given.