[moring]

You'll have to add one reaction to that list: "it didn't generate the game because something like that was in the training data".

Nevermind that this perfectly describes 90% of software development.

I'm actually wondering to what extent these responses are fueled by fear of being replaced by AI.

[beepbooptheory]

I know its getting popular, but I really doubt 90% of software development is generated from trained models...

I don't understand what's so at stake with this that you feel like people are afraid. It's fun and amazing it can spit out stuff like this, and if you are a good developer experimenting with this stuff you already know its inarguably a novel and useful utility, if still limited in some ways.

But where is the fire? Why does everything got to devolve into one vague culture war or another? Shouldn't you welcome good faith critique? If only for the fact that these things can still be improved, and how can you hope to improve them if you smother and dismiss every suggestion that these models might be less than perfect.

[moring]

I think you are fighting a strawman here. These models are far from perfect, and critique is certainly needed to improve them.

That being said, I don't think saying that the model outputs information from its training set adds a lot to the discussion because -- and that's my point -- the same is true for human software developers most of the time (yes, the 90% is a made up number). This isn't meant at all to criticize the skills of the developers, but rather point out that most of our work is just much less interesting than we'd like it to be, and could be automated.

Also, I don't think developers will be replaced by AI, just like they were not replaced by code generators, build scripts, IDE auto-complete, IDE rename all usages, and so on. What might happen is that they will no longer have to write mind-numbing boilerplate code, which IMHO is a good thing.