|
|
|
|
|
|
by cyberpunk
544 days ago
|
|
|
I couldn’t be arsed typing a reference number into my online banking for a bill payment the other and it was a copy protected pdf, so I fired a screenshot into Claude and GPT and asked it to extract the details I need and both of them repeatedly got the OCR wrong. I don’t trust these at all for anything apart from code which I can at least read/rewrite. It’s quite nice for unit tests I guess. And weird k8s manifests you only write now again like batch/v1 CronJob or whatever. I’m not panicking about my job just yet.. |
|
|
How can you trust a tool that's right 95% of the time? In the end I wrote a script which handled edge cases explicitly. That took a little bit longer, but the output is deterministic. It took less time than manually cross referencing the output and input would have.
I tried asking GPT to write the conversion script instead, but the script it generated just didn't deal with the edge cases. After a few rounds of increasingly specific directions which didn't seem to be helping, I gave up.
I've been using copilot for development work. It has some magic moments, and it can be great for boilerplate. But then it introduces subtle bugs which are really hard to catch in review, or suggests completely incorrect function signatures and I wonder if it's adding very much at all.
The biggest problem with these tools is that they turn a fun problem solving exercise into an incredibly tedious reviewing exercise. I'd much rather do it myself and understand it fully than have to review the unreliable output of an LLM. I find it much simpler to be correct than to find flaws in other peoples work.
Am I missing something?