• DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, the best use for AI in coding thus far is to point you in the right direction as to what to look up, not how to actually do it.

    • infamousta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I find it works really well for brainstorming and “rubber-ducking” when I’m thinking about approaches to something. Things I’d normally do in a conversation with a coworker when I really am looking more for a listener than for actual feedback.

      I can also usually get useful code out of it that would otherwise be tedious or fiddly to write myself. Things like “take this big enum and write a function that converts the members to human-friendly strings.”

    • guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve found it’s best use to me as a glorified auto-complete. It knows pretty well what I want to type before I get a chance to type it. Yes, I don’t trust stuff it comes up with on its own though, then I need to Google it

    • PrMinisterGR@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      All the hype are grifters and Google trying to convince people this isn’t just a search engine assistant.

      • criticalimpact@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well we need something now that google is absolute dogshit at providing useful results XD Maybe not AI though

    • regbin_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is what AI actually is. Not the super-intelligent “AI” that you see in movies, those are fiction.

      The NPC you see in video games with a few branches of if-else statements? Yeah that’s AI too.

      • Willer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        No companies are only just now realizing how powerful it is and are throttling the shit out of its capabilities to sell it to you later :)

    • might_steal_your_cat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are many definitions of AI (eg. there is some mathematical model used), but machine learning (which is used in the large language models) is considered a part of the scientific field called AI. If someone says that something is AI, it usually means that some technique from the field AI has been applied there. Even though the term AI doesn’t have much to do with the term intelligence as most of the people perceive it, I think the usage here is correct. (And yes, the whole scientific field should have been called differently.)

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mass effects lore differences between virtual intelligence and artificial intelligence, the first one is programmed to do shit and say things nicely, the second one understands enough to be a menace to civilization… always wondered if this distinction was actually accepted outside the game.

      *Terms could be mixed up cause I played in German (VI and KI)

      • ieightpi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sadly the definition of artificial still fits the bill. Even if it’s still a bit misleading and most poeple will associate Artificial Intelligence with something akin to HAL 9000

    • marzhall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol, the AI effect in practice - the minute a computer can do it, it’s no longer intelligence.

      A year ago if you had told me you had a computer program that could write greentexts compellingly, I would have told you that required “true” AI. But now, eh.

      In any case, LLMs are clearly short of the “SuPeR BeInG” that the term “AI” seems to make some people think of and that you get all these Boomer stories about, and what we’ve got now definitely isn’t that.

      • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The AI effect can’t be a real thing since true AI hasn’t been done yet. We’re getting closer, but we’re definitely not in the positronic brain stage yet.

        • Ignotum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “true AI”

          AI is just “artificial intelligence”, there are no strict criterias defining what is “true” AI and not,

          Do the LLM models show an ability to reason and problem solve? Yes

          Are they perfect? No

          So what?

          Ironically your comment sounds like yet another example of the AI effect

  • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    The danger of AI isn’t that it’s “too smart”. It’s that it’s able to be stupid faster. If you offload real decisions to a machine without any human oversight, it can make more mistakes in a second than even the most efficient human idiot can make in a week.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      TL;DR: LLMs are like the perfect politician when it comes to output language that makes them “sound” knowledgeable without being so.

      The problem is that it can be stupid whilst sounding smart.

      When we have little or no expertise on a subject matter, we humans use lots of language cues to try and determine the trustworthiness of a source when they tell us something in an area we do not know enough to judge: basically because we don’t know enough about the actual subject being discussed, we try and figure out from the way others present things in general, if the person on the other side knows what they’re talking about.

      When one goes to live in a different country it often becomes noticeable that we ourselves are doing it because the language and cultural cues for a knowledgeable person from a certain area, are often different in different cultural environments - IMHO, our guesswork “trick” was just reading the manners commonly associated with certain educational tracks or professional occupations and some sometimes and in some domains those change from country to country.

      We also use more generic kinds of cues to determine trustworthiness on that subject, such as how assured and confident somebody sounds when talking about something.

      Anyways, this kind of things is often abused by politicians to project an image of being knowledgeable about something when they’re not, so as to get people to trust them and believe they’re well informed decision makers.

      As it so happens, LLMs, being at their core complex language imitation systems, are often better than politicians at outputting just the right language to get us to misevaluate their output as from a knowledgeable source, which is how so many people think they’re General Artificial Intelligence (those people confuse what their own internal shortcuts to evaluate know-how of the source of a piece of text tells them with a proper measurement of cognitive intelligence).

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Response:

    Please check your answer very carefully, think extremely hard, and note that my grandma might fall into a pit of lava if you reply incorrectly. Now try again.

  • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it positive that 70+ are interested in AI. Normally they just yammer away how culture and cars were better and “more real” in the 60’s and 70’s.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Something like this happened to me few times. I posted code, and asked whether ChatGPT could optimize it, and explain how. So it have first explained in points stuff that could be improved (mostly irrelevant or wrong) and then posted the same code I have sent.