[p1esk]

Yeah I don't know where benreesman pulled that statement from, neither the blog post nor the original OpenAI paper claims anything of the sort.

That aside, I'm not sure how impressive is an AI that could do 37% of "all coding tasks". It's like a self-driving car that only works 37% of the time.

[benreesman]

From TFA: “OpenAI estimates that OpenAI Codex (what powers Github’s Copilot) can already complete 37% of coding tasks.”

[p1esk]

Are you intentionally trying to hide that “coding tasks” in the blog article is a link to the paper, clearly explaining what these coding task are? And you, for some reason, decided to add “all” before “coding tasks”.

What are you trying to pull?

[benreesman]

I’m not trying to “pull” anything. I find the notion that Codex/Copilot is within 2-3 orders of magnitude from writing code I’d trust without a careful audit that does anything more than some CRUD thing in JS framework du jour to be Kurzweil-whacko singularity shit, and that the only people trying to “pull” anything here are the people training GPT-3 on everyone’s GutHub repository without permission or attribution and exploit non-expert opinion to generate yet another round of hype, hysteria, and mysticism about that magical pair of two undefinable words: “artificial” and “intelligence”.

I regret mis-quoting TFA by an article, because if I cited it correctly I’d really lay the fucking smack down here.

Have I adequately answered your condescending question?