[danfang]

This is naive. The point is that code is a well defined system with clear rules that can be expressed through logic and mathematics. GPT is suited to approximate systems where the rules are not well defined. Until AI can actually learn the principles of logic, it may not be useful for code generation on a meaningful scale, other than things just like simple auto-completions.

Not only that, AI would also have to learn the principles of system design, performance, security, readability, maintainability. That's what makes "good" software. It's a far stretch to say that AI could achieve anything of the sort based on current abilities.

[Grimm1]

Good thing I didn't say it would, I'm really not sure what you think I wrote.

[danfang]

Your only metric of "good" code generation is # of bugs. My assertion was that this is not accurate.

I also disagree with the premise that code generation by AI will be very useful for programmers, for the reasons stated above.

[Grimm1]

It's clearly not if you read the rest of that sentence, that's my metric for it to be useful. My metric for it being good is much deeper. Which is why I questioned what you responded with.

We are already at the point of useful and context aware code generation anyway which is why I've found everyone on this thread questioning it to be kind of funny, Microsoft was demoing complex generations a year ago. So we're well on our way.

https://www.pscp.tv/Microsoft/1OyKAYWPRrWKb?t=29m19s

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3518429/jetbrains-taps-mac...