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
> 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 ...

I think there's an argument to be made that AI is being used here to help you tackle the more trivial tasks so you have more time to focus on the more important, and challenging tasks. Albeit I recognise GitHub CoPilot is legally questionable.

But yes, I agree with your overall point that AI has still not been able to 'think' like a human but rather can only still pretend to think like a human, and history has shown that users are often fooled by this.

>>thejam+0f
I think the parent’s comment is probably referring to the fact if you use Copilot to write code then you have to go through and try to understand what it wrote and possibly debug it. And you don’t have the opportunity to ask it why it wrote it the way it did when reviewing its code.

>>exeget+Rf
I think you’re right, but that just means parent doesn’t understand copilot and is off tilting at windmills.

Copilot is amazing for reducing the tedium of typing obvious but lengthy code (and strings!). And it’s inline and passive; it’s not like you go edit -> insert -> copilot function and it dumps in 100 lines of code you have to debug. Which is what it sounds like parent is mistaking it for.

I’m reminded of 1995, when an elderly relative told me everything wrong with the internet based on TV news and not having ever actually seen the internet.

>>brooks+Aj
> Copilot is amazing for reducing the tedium of typing obvious but lengthy code (and strings!)

Which it occasionally mistypes. Then you're off to chase a small piece of error in a tub of boilerplate. Great stuff! For actual example, see [0]

[0] https://blog.ploeh.dk/2022/12/05/github-copilot-preliminary-...

>>Joker_+2p
You must be a much better programmer than I if those are examples you’d use copilot for. I was thinking more like:

   start_value = get_*start_value(user_input)*
   self.log.d*ebug(‘got start_value {start_value}’)*

. . . where the would-be italics are what copilot would likely suggest for completion.

And if it’s wrong, you just. . . keep typing. It’s autocomplete, just like IDEs have for other things. I’m kind of astounded that people have such an emotional reaction to an optional, low-key, passive, easily-ignored tool that sometimes saves a bunch of typing. Yes, if you always accept the suggestions you’ll have problems. Just like literally every other coding assistance tool.

>>brooks+ar
That's not my blog, I just thought the example to be relevant.

> I was thinking more like:

That example is straight up from any of those "programming is not bound by typing speed" essays of yore.

> people have such an emotional reaction to an optional, low-key, passive, easily-ignored tool that sometimes saves a bunch of typing.

Maybe because it's not generally advertised by proponents as "an optional, low-key, passive, easily-ignored tool that sometimes saves a bunch of typing"? Just look at the rest of the thread, it's pronounced as a game-changer in productivity.