|
|
|
|
|
by Lerc
843 days ago
|
|
Even though I don't think GPT-4 is up to the task, it does seem like now is the right time to be working on these things. Pretty soon GPT-4 will not be the best in the field. The next generation will perform much better. Possibly the most frustrating thing I find about GPT-4 is how close it gets with it's wrong answers. It's easy to dismiss a lesser answer when it responds with a laughably out-of-band idea. GPT-4 often shows that it has a general idea of what you want but misses a small but critical aspect which results in a solution to something else that is similar but not what you wanted. I have mixed results on iterating on it's own mistakes. It will too often try and change the world to match it's answer, rather than fixing the answer. The best approach I have found to stop this is by getting it to create unit tests. I imagine there is a lot of training data for it to understand the intention behind fixing a failing test. It's a very specific problem for it to look at and generally changing the test is not considered the correct solution. |
|
I think this is why the non-tech people see AI as so amazing. For anything human and non-technical, the “almost but not quite” nature is a good thing.
I was using an AI to help me debug a weird thing (mainly summarizing log splats hundreds of lines long) and I eventually got pretty close to identifying the issue when I asked “wtaf is this message. Never seen anything like it.” It then went on about how it was offended that I used vulgar language. I had to apologize for saying “wtaf!” Anyway, I found a bug in a linker, so that was fun; thanks Al.