We have to wait a bit to have an useful assistant (but maybe something like copilot or more coded focused ai are better)

If you don't know what you are doing, and you give it a vague request hoping it will automatically solve your problem, then you will just have to spend even more time to debug its given code.

However, if you know exactly what needs do do, and give it a good prompt, then it will reward you with a very well written code, clean implementation and comments. Consider it an intern or junior developer.

Example of bad prompt: My code won't work [paste the code], I keep having this error [paste the error log], please help me

Example of (reasonably) good prompt: This code introduces deep recursion and can sometimes cause a "maximum stack size exceeded" error in certain cases. Please help me convert it to use a while loop instead.

People down vote me when I point this out in response to "AI will take our jobs" doomerism.

So this issue for me is this:

If these technologies still require large amounts of human intervention to make them usable then why are we expending so much energy on solutions that still require human intervention to make them usable?

Why not skip the burning the planet to a crisp for half-formed technology that can't give consistent results and instead just pay people a living fucking wage to do the job in the first place?

Seriously, one of the biggest jokes in computer science is that debugging other people's code gives you worse headaches than migraines.

So now we're supposed to dump insane amounts of money and energy (as in burning fossil fuels and needing so much energy they're pushing for a nuclear resurgence) into a tool that results in... having to debug other people's code?

They've literally turned all of programming into the worst aspect of programming for barely any fucking improvement over just letting humans do it.

Why do we think it's important to burn the planet to a crisp in pursuit of this when humans can already fucking make art and code? Especially when we still need humans to fix the fucking AIs work to make it functionally usable. That's still a lot of fucking work expected of humans for a "tool" that's demanding more energy sources than currently exists.

Just like answers on the Internet, you have to read the output and not just paste it blindly. I find the answers are usually useful, even if they aren't completely accurate. Figuring out the last bit is why we are paid as programmers.

So it is incorrect and verbose, but also comprehensive and using a well-articulated language style at the same time?

Also "study participants still preferred ChatGPT answers 35% of the time", meaning that the overwhelming majority (two-thirds) did not prefer the bot answers over the human(e), correct ones, that maybe were not phrased as confidently as they could have been.

Just say it out loud: ChatGPT is style over substance, aka Fox News. 🦊

C-suites:

tHis iS inCReDibLe! wE cAn SavE sO MUcH oN sTafFiNg cOStS!