• demesisx@infosec.pubEnglish
    59·
    4 months ago

    Have these people ever tried to code using chatGPT? It’s wrong SO often.

    Edit: maybe they know this but they want to drive down the price of developers by pretending they don’t need them anymore. I would not be surprised if this were the case here.

    • Buckshot@programming.dev
      12·
      4 months ago

      it can barely get single functions correct but we’re supposed to believe it can write entire systems from a single prompt? Either way our job at the moment is writing instructions for another piece of software (compiler) to turn into the code. This just adds another level of abstraction. High level programming languages already let us do more with fewer staff. It didn’t make coders redundant, it let to even more software.

      edit: forgot to add, agree with your edit, that or just trying to inflate their stock prices.

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      10·
      4 months ago

      Yep, it’s blatant attempts to decrease costs of employment. Just like outsourcing various tech jobs, automated phone trees, and every business tech “no code required” automation/workflow platform ever devised.

      Convince people they can do more with your particular flavor of less. Charge them enough that they save money on the books but you make a profit through them using your toolkit.

      At the end of the day, you will always still need someone to fully understand the problem, the inputs, the expected outputs, the tiny details that matter but are often overlooked, to identify roadblocks and determine options around them with associated costs and risks, and ultimately to chart a path from point A to B that has room for further complications.

      Whatever the tool set, job title, or perceived level of efficiency provided by the tools, this need will never go away. Businesses are involved in a near constant effort to reduce what they have to pay for these skills, and welcome whatever latest fad points towards the potential of reducing those costs.

    • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      5·
      4 months ago

      Exactly. They’ll be signing contracts with “AI” coding farms in India which will just be staffed by overworked and un(der)paid interns and/or junior devs.

    • glowing_hans@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      That is why I already ask it to generate unit tests for its AI generated functions as well, which are also wrong semantically sometimes…

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    25·
    4 months ago

    It’s also possible that in 24 months, I grow wings made of fish and get into anime style battles in the sky with hungry seagulls. Just as likely.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
    22·
    4 months ago

    Ah that AI hype train is still rolling I see. Funny they said the exact same thing 24 months ago.

    I have a feeling it’ll happen to us right around the same time Tesla self driving fully leaves beta.

  • Elise@beehaw.org
    17·
    4 months ago

    Gpt4 is seriously idiotic with code. It’s only capable of some basic stuff. Anything mildly complex and it’ll keep bouncing back and forth between mistakes as I keep correcting it. It just can’t reason.

  • belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org
    16·
    4 months ago

    Good luck with that, idiots. You can’t automcomplete your way into knowing what you are doing because this shit isn’t deterministic or all that often correct.

    Hype bullshit desperate for buyers

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      5·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, the motivation here is “please panic-buy our GPUs/please panic-buy into our cloud GPU infrastructure ”

  • CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    14·
    4 months ago

    Read: Two guys with no AI expertise agree that its boosting of their share price should continue (real shocker).

    These news articles really love jerking these CEOs off

  • SpectralPineapple@beehaw.orgEnglish
    9·
    4 months ago

    That was a a fairly short article reporting on another article. The title gives the impression that the assertion was made with certainty when the actual quote makes it clear that this was meant as speculation, a calculated guess made on a conversation that was not meant to be public. I truly have no inclination to defend corporate leadership, but perhaps it would be more productive to direct our sentiments towards the article that is being quoted instead.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      4·
      4 months ago

      Great point, but this part of the quote is still dumb as rocks:

      Coding is just kind of like the language that we talk to computers. It’s not necessarily the skill in and of itself. The skill in and of itself is like, how do I innovate? How do I go build something that’s interesting for my end users to use?

      Sure, if you have a big workforce hand-coding UI, you might replace some of them by better tools. But things like that are a fraction of a fraction of the responsibilities developers have