Not only trouble communicating but often knowing what the code they just wrote actually does. I will ever remember one of the first times I wrote a thorough set of tests for what I thought was a correct and simple little bit of code: it wasn’t doing what I thought, until many iterations later.
My experience thus far is not all sessions even with the same AI are equal. There’s still that issue of erroneous errors and of course differing levels of quality of output each and every time it’s asked to do something. Like sometimes it’s bang on amazing and other times it’s straight up gaslighting you over statements that are blatantly false.
To temporarily drop into a philosophical debate, all humans are doing is seemingly action potentials in neurons which form models and do predictions not too dissimilar but a lot better and of course self aware (I’m assuming other people are self aware)
That said I’m surprised current models are even as good as they are, most people take the progress since 2017 for granted, then again the AI hype train has over promised like mad and when the thing works it can be flipping amazing, it’s just not consistently that good and failures are unpredictable. I honestly didn’t think we would be here until 2050 to 2080.
Alright philosophy aside, humans are easier to reason with so far, particularly when questioning.
Well written response, don’t know why you are downvoted. Makes me think back to a philosophy class where I questions if we are more than a machine that is able to product certain formulations or responses based on how our brains are set and the relevant input. For instance based on context it’s very easy for me to guess what my partner is thinking. For myself, where do my thoughts come from? Can I think a truly random thought? I’ve no idea and I think not. How is that different than ai? Because I have built neuron connects forming this framework that is my mind and allow my ideas to be formed unlike just randomly guessing. On the flip side, as an academic am I not just making an educated guess every time I think?
You can ask AI how code works too, though. And it’s always available, whereas the human who wrote the code may not be.
Several times now I’ve come across a project that looked interesting but wasn’t well documented, and I just dropped the Github link into an AI chat and asked it to tell me stuff about how it worked. What algorithms were used, and so forth. Really handy.
As a developer I can say that plenty of developers have trouble accurately communicating how code they just wrote works.
That said its still infinitly being able to ask them questions on it then trying to parse AI code.
Hell, I’ve written code on Friday and by Monday it makes zero sense to me.
Who wrote this ridiculous, nonfunctional, unreadable spaghetti code?
Oh, I did?
… It’s not so bad.
Not only trouble communicating but often knowing what the code they just wrote actually does. I will ever remember one of the first times I wrote a thorough set of tests for what I thought was a correct and simple little bit of code: it wasn’t doing what I thought, until many iterations later.
My experience thus far is not all sessions even with the same AI are equal. There’s still that issue of erroneous errors and of course differing levels of quality of output each and every time it’s asked to do something. Like sometimes it’s bang on amazing and other times it’s straight up gaslighting you over statements that are blatantly false.
Well yeah, they’ve got no understanding of anything, it has no ability to detect if it’s right or wrong, it’s all just text prediction.
To temporarily drop into a philosophical debate, all humans are doing is seemingly action potentials in neurons which form models and do predictions not too dissimilar but a lot better and of course self aware (I’m assuming other people are self aware)
That said I’m surprised current models are even as good as they are, most people take the progress since 2017 for granted, then again the AI hype train has over promised like mad and when the thing works it can be flipping amazing, it’s just not consistently that good and failures are unpredictable. I honestly didn’t think we would be here until 2050 to 2080.
Alright philosophy aside, humans are easier to reason with so far, particularly when questioning.
Well written response, don’t know why you are downvoted. Makes me think back to a philosophy class where I questions if we are more than a machine that is able to product certain formulations or responses based on how our brains are set and the relevant input. For instance based on context it’s very easy for me to guess what my partner is thinking. For myself, where do my thoughts come from? Can I think a truly random thought? I’ve no idea and I think not. How is that different than ai? Because I have built neuron connects forming this framework that is my mind and allow my ideas to be formed unlike just randomly guessing. On the flip side, as an academic am I not just making an educated guess every time I think?
You can ask AI how code works too, though. And it’s always available, whereas the human who wrote the code may not be.
Several times now I’ve come across a project that looked interesting but wasn’t well documented, and I just dropped the Github link into an AI chat and asked it to tell me stuff about how it worked. What algorithms were used, and so forth. Really handy.
Until the AI companies run out of money.
True but usually when they go in and look at it it all snaps back into their mind. . . Usually.