[ascar]

Due to the nature of my current work I haven't really used GPT for coding yet, but I keep wondering isn't it easier to write code than to read and truly understand it? So how much development time was really saved, if I still care about off-by-one errors or correct identity checks in hash maps or all those edge cases I probably should care about? Those are all things much harder to spot reading than writing the code.

So I keep wondering if we just save time by introducing more unknown bugs using GPT?

I guess this also has a lot to do with what code is written. I would be much more concerned with a system level C++ library than some JavaScript CRUD.

[srcreigh]

Your comment is a great example of how intelligent humans hallucinate!

Gpt-4 often handles errors well. The generated code is easy to review if you understand what you asked for (if it generates tests and examples too-which it can). Etc

[elicksaur]

People have different experiences with any given thing. You might find your TV remote intuitive and easy to us. Your grandparents might find it overwhelmingly difficult. Which is true?

[srcreigh]

Yeah, sorry for the snark. I was mostly referring to how the comment I replied to said they hadn’t actually used GPT for coding, but had lots of ideas about its limitations etc.

[ascar]

If you read closely I am not talking about the limitations of GPT, but about the limitations of the developer having to fix code of others (GPT essentially being another developer). I guess it depends on the complexity of the problem. A lot of stuff is very easy to review and for me other stuff needs more time to understand than it did to write.