|
|
|
|
|
|
by andyjda
1212 days ago
|
|
|
The ratio of dumb stuff to reasonable stuff being said about ChatGPT is dizzying; I truly hope it has reached its peak and this kind of hype and poorly-thought-out analysis dies down soon. This whole article could be summarized as "How to protect your career? Be good at your job!" The 'software dev' section is particularly off-putting. It starts off with a code-snippet that is ridiculously wrong: it defines 'typos' as any string matching this regex: '(\w+)\s+\w+'.
That's right, if your text contains a word followed by whitespace followed by a word, that's a typo.
The code could only appear correct to someone with no knowledge of the domain and no experience coding. The fact that this was published on "wearedevelopers.com" is a bit sad. The article then goes on to deliver this piece of wisdom: "Coding will soon become no more than a means to an end. Which it always was."
OK, if it always was, then why is this news, or a disruptive change? Also, is anybody involved with writing production software convinced that coding is somehow not a means to an end? What else would it be? I don't have much knowledge of the other careers mentioned in the article, but I suspect the analysis and advice there is about as flawed. The suggestion that teachers should have ChatGPT grade papers while they spend more time "face-to-face with struggling students" seems particularly vapid and shortsighted as well. How would they even know who is really struggling if they're not reading their work, delegating it to a notoriously unreliable tool? |
|
|
If you want this hype cycle to come to its inevitable end sooner rather than later, maybe it's a good idea to keep quiet about such errors.
Anyway I'm still curious to see what happens when enough of that garbage code makes it into github for the next iteration of Codex or some similar model, to be trained (or fine-tuned anyway). If we keep pointing out the errors in code generated by LLMs, we risk never finding out.