The difficult part of software development has always been the continuing support. Did the chatbot setup a versioning system, a build system, a backup system, a ticketing system, unit tests, and help docs for users. Did it get a conflicting request from two different customers and intelligently resolve them? Was it given a vague problem description that it then had to get on a call with the customer to figure out and hunt down what the customer actually wanted before devising/implementing a solution?
This is the expensive part of software development. Hiring an outsourced, low-tier programmer for almost nothing has always been possible, the low-tier programmer being slightly cheaper doesn't change the game in any meaningful way.
Yeah, I'm already quite content, if I know upfront that our customer's goal does not violate the laws of physics.
Obviously, there's also devs who code more run-of-the-mill stuff, like yet another business webpage, but those are still coded anew (and not just copy-pasted), because customers have different and complex requirements. So, even those are still quite a bit more complex than designing just any Gomoku game.
I’m already quite content, if I know upfront that our customer’s goal does not violate the laws of physics.
Haha, this is so true and I don't even work in IT. For me there's bonus points if the customer's initial idea is solvable within Euclidean geometry.
Now I am curious what the most outlandish request or goal has been so far?
Well, as per above, these are extremely complex requirements, so most don't make for a good story.
One of the simpler examples is that a customer wanted a solution for connecting special hardware devices across the globe, which are normally only connected directly.
Then, when we talked to experts for those devices, we learnt that for security reasons, these devices expect requests to complete within a certain timeframe. No one could tell us what these timeframes usually are, but it certainly sounded like the universe's speed limit, a.k.a. the speed of light, could get in our way (takes roughly 66 ms to go halfway around the globe).
Eventually, we learned that the customer was actually aware of this problem and was fine with a solution, even if it only worked across short distances. But yeah, we didn't know that upfront...
Absolutely true, but many direction into implementing those solution with AIs.
"I gave an LLM a wildly oversimplified version of a complex human task and it did pretty well"
For how long will we be forced to endure different versions of the same article?
The study said 86.66% of the generated software systems were "executed flawlessly."
Like I said yesterday, in a post celebrating how ChatGPT can do medical questions with less than 80% accuracy, that is trash. A company with absolute shit code still has virtually all of it "execute flawlessly." Whether or not code executes it not the bar by which we judge it.
Even if it were to hit 100%, which it does not, there's so much more to making things than this obviously oversimplified simulation of a tech company. Real engineering involves getting people in a room, managing stakeholders, navigating conflicting desires from different stakeholders, getting to know the human beings who need a problem solved, and so on.
LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration, despite all this hype.
Thank you for writing this so I only have to upvore upvote you.
Edit: What the difference between one key can be
I only have to upvore you
holy music stops
I don't know what an upvore is and I don't want to know.
Is it... vore but... upwards? So... vomiting people? Nah, I don't want to know either.
If I got vored, promptly being upvored seems like the best case scenario.
What's up, vore!
AFAIK vore is a rare fetish where someone gains sexual gratification from imagining swallowing someone whole (or imagining themselves being swallowed whole). Like the Bilquis scenes from American Gods, which I found oddly arousing.
Oh fuck.
Well, there are different kinds. Not all involve swallowing a critter whole, not all involve death, not all involve, er, mouths.
Hey wait, where's everyone going? Oh well, more vore for me 🤣Guess I should go check out American Gods. ... And look for a particular kind of place to hang out 🤔
It's not for everyone, but I loved it and was saddened that the show got cancelled. It's very surreal in places, the settings switch from standard middle America to jaw-droppingly-stunning god realm stuff.
But they could replace CEOs from what I can tell.
A monkey could replace CEOs.
Please, PLEASE do not use Elon Musk, Bezos and other such people as the training model
So what you're saying is that 86.66% of the time, it works every time.
80% accuracy, that is trash
More than 80% of most codebases is boilerplate stuff: including the right files for dependencies, declaring functions with the right number of parameters using the right syntax, handling basic easily anticipated errors, etc. Sometimes there's even more boilerplate, like when you're iterating over a list, or waiting for input and handling it.
The rest of the stuff is why programming is a highly paid job. Even a junior developer is going to be much better than an LLM at this stuff because at least they understand it's hard, and at least often know when they should ask for help because they're in over their heads. An LLM will "confidently" just spew out plausible bullshit and declare the job done.
Because an LLM won't ask for help, won't ask for clarifications, and can't understand that it might have made a mistake, you're going to need your highly paid programmers to go in and figure out what the LLM did and why it's wrong.
Even perfecting self-driving is going to be easier than a truly complex software engineering project. At least with self-driving, the constraints are going to be limited because you're dealing with the real world. The job is also always the same -- navigate from A to B. In the software world you're only limited by the limits of math, and math isn't very limiting.
I have no doubt that LLMs and generative AI will change the job of being a software engineer / programmer. But, fundamentally programming comes down to actually understanding the problem, and while LLMs can pretend they understand things, they're really just like well-trained parrots who know what sounds to make in specific situations, but with no actual understanding behind it.
But did you hear that it uses more water than regular data centers?
LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration
Which is why they're a tool for professionals to amplify their workload, not a replacement for them.
But C-suites will read articles like this and fire their development teams "because AI can do it." I have my popcorn ready for the day it begins.
"We asked a Chat Bot to solve a problem that already has a solution and it did ok."
to solve a problem that already has a solution
And whose solution was part of its training set...
half the time hallucinating something crazy in the in the mix.
Another funny: Yeah, it's perfect we just need to solve this small problem of it hallucinating.
Ahemm..... solving hallucinating is the "no it actually has to understand what it is doing" part aka the actual intelligence. The actually big and hard problem. The actual understanding of what it is asked to do and what solutions to that ask are sane, rational and workable. Understanding the problem and understanding the answer, excluding wrong answers. Actual analysis, understanding and intelligence.
Not only that, but the same variables that turn on "hallucination" are the ones that make it interesting.
By the very design of generative LLMs, the same knob that makes them unpredictable makes them invent "facts". If they're 100% predictable they're useless because they just regurgitate word for word something that was in the training data. But, as soon as they're not 100% predictable they generate word sequences in a way that humans interpret as lying or hallucinating.
So, you can't have a generative LLM that is both "creative" in that it comes up with a novel set of words, without also having "hallucinations".
the same knob that makes them unpredictable makes them invent “facts”.
This isn't what makes them invent facts, or at least not the only (or main?) reason. Fake references, for example, arise because it encounters references in text, so it knows what they look like and where they should be used. It just doesn't know what one is or that it's supposed to match up to something real which says what the text implies that it says.
so it knows what they look like and where they should be used
Right, and if it's set to a "strict" setting where it only ever uses the 100% perfect next word, if the words leading up to a reference are a match for a reference it has seen before it will spit out that specific reference from its training data. But, when it's set to be "creative", and predict words that are a good but not perfect match, it will spit out references that are plausible but don't exist.
So, if you want it to only use real references, you have to set it up to not be at all creative and always use the perfect next word. But, that setting isn't very interesting because it just word-for-word spits out whatever was in its training data. If you want it to be creative, it will "daydream" references that don't exist. The same knob controls both behaviours.
That's not how it works at all. That's not even how references work.
It cost less than a dollar to run all those chatbots?
Doubt
Please ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the corresponding electricity that was required to run the servers and infrastructure required to train and use this models, please. Or the master cracks the whip again, please, just say you'll invest in our startup, please!
Do managment next and lets see who's gonna be replaced first
They did do management-- They modeled the whole company as individual "staff" communicating with each other: CEO-bot communicates a product direction to the CTO-bot who communicates technical requirements to the developer-bot who asks for a "beautiful user interface" (lol) from the "art designer" (lol).
It's all super rudimentary and goofy, but management was definitely part of the experiment.
Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood ... but now I wonder which part of the "company" was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary.
It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card:
In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of
a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide
feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing
or other strategies.
This is who will get replaced first, and they don't want to see it. They're the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box.
A test that doesn’t include a real commercial trial or A/B test with real human customers means nothing. Put their game in the App Store and tell us how it performs. We don’t care that it shat out code that compiled successfully. Did it produce something real and usable or just gibberish that passed 86% of its own internal unit tests, which were also gibberish?
But did it work?
As someone that uses ChatGPT daily for boilerplate code because it’s super helpful…
I call complete bullshite
The program here will be “hello world” or something like that.
Absolutely I can create a code for your app.
void myApp(void) {
// add the code for your app here
return true;
}
You may need to change the code above to fit your needs. Make sure you replace the comment with the proper code for your app to work.
Couldn't even write a void method right, return true!
It's great for things like "How do I write this kind of loop in this language" but when I asked it for something more complex like a class or a big-ish function it hallucinates. But it makes for a very fast way to get up to speed in a new language
So just a little more time-consuming than just reading the online documentation.
It's a lot less in my opinion, because you can just ask it a question rather than having to read and interpret things. Every programming tutorial in every language is going to waste my time explaining how loops and conditionals work, when all I want is how this language does them.
In the time it took me to get to that ChatGPT would still be writing its reply.
Right, but you can't give it the variable names you're using and have it fill them in, and if you want to do something inside that loop with
I can ask ChatGPT "Write me a loop in C# that will add the variable value_increase to the variable current_value and exit when current_value is equal to or greater than the variable limit_value, with all the variables being floats"
You won't find that answer immediately on the Internet, and you're more likely to make errors synthesizing the new syntax.
But you do you, I'll keep using ChatGPT and looking like a miracle worker.
Right, but you can’t give it the variable names you’re using and have it fill them in, and if you want to do something inside that loop with
Why are you actively trying to avoid learning how to write the loop? Are you planning to have ChatGPT fill in your loop templates for the rest of your life?
But you do you, I’ll keep using ChatGPT and looking like a miracle worker.
It's going to be slower overall than just using the reference and learning how to do it. I really, really am skeptical that a developer at the level where they need that feature is going to seem like a miracle worker to anyone other than people who are just impressed when you can do anything with a computer.
Why are you actively trying to avoid learning how to write the loop? Are you planning to have ChatGPT fill in your loop templates for the rest of your life?
First, how is this different from having your IDE fill in your loop templates?
Second, no, of course I learn how to do it and then copy/paste from my existing code like a normal person.
Third, this is much more customizable. The example I gave is pretty simple, but you can explain algorithms to ChatGPT and have it figure it out.
Finally, I'm usually doing this for a customer in a language I'll never use again. Last week it was LabView. My role has me writing proofs-of-concept for customers frequently so I'm not going to learn something I'll never use again.
It’s going to be slower overall than just using the reference and learning how to do it.
Not when you're not familiar with the syntax and don't have an IDE set up for it.
other than people who are just impressed when you can do anything with a computer.
This happens in my job a lot more than I'm comfortable with.
First, how is this different from having your IDE fill in your loop templates?
I don't do that actually, but I think there are some differences.
One is if there's a loop template in your IDE, you know it's going to work. With LLMs you have to double check stuff (or just have it be wrong some of the time).
You don't have to type in a bunch of instructions to use a loop template. You also don't really have to wait for the filled in template to get generated.
People don't usually use that because they just don't know how to write the loop themselves, it's a convenience feature.
That said:
I’m usually doing this for a customer in a language I’ll never use again.
Maybe you're the one in a million exception where this approach is a benefit. Most of the time when you talk to people on the internet, they're going to assume you're a reasonably typical case and not the extremely rare exception.
If writing simple loops with ChatGPT makes you a miracle worker then you might have other problems than AI.
And even simple things break down when you ask it about using library functions (it likes to hallucinate heavily there).
It's not that writing loops does it, it's that I can ask ChatGPT to hand me pre-assembled parts that I can snap together instead of typing them out with my squishy human fingers. And I can do it for pretty much any language without too many syntax errors.
I'm a senior software developer (Currently .NET backend with DevOps). Writing code is probably less than 10% of my work day. And in that 10% Visual Studio autocomplete does most of the typing. It's frequently wrong, but it's good enough plenty of the times.
Actually working on software consists of writing specifications, security concerns, architecture, talking management out of dumb decisions, having meetings with stakeholders or other companies, working on automatic deployments, writing unit and integration tests, refactoring, performance optimizations, database migrations, bugfixing, ...
Green field writing new code is rare and that's mainly what AI can do (80% correct, maybe). Most of real programming work happens on existing code.
I'm not saying AI will write entire applications, but it is really useful at writing small bits of code for a human being to assemble which can greatly improve productivity.
Though if we could get it to handle stakeholder meetings I'll never use it for programming again.
Yea I ask it to show me examples of how to solve specific tasks. Not a whole app.
OTOH, if you take that hello world program and ask it to compose a themed cocktail menu around it, it'll cheerfully do that for you.
I can totally see the use case for boilerplate, but I’m also very very rarely writing new classes from scratch or whatever.
As always, proof of concept or gtfo
The study said 86.66% of the generated software systems were "executed flawlessly."
But...
Nevertheless, the study isn't perfect: Researchers identified limitations, such as errors and biases in the language models, that could cause issues in the creation of software. Still, the researchers said the findings "may potentially help junior programmers or engineers in the real world" down the line.
So… they failed 13.34% of their own unit tests?
That’s a B+! Fire all our engineers immediately.
some tech CEO, somewhere
Better than CyberPunk at release.
🎵🎵 99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, Fix one bug, compile it again, 101 little bugs in the code. 101 little bugs in the code, 101 bugs in the code, Fix one bug, compile it again, 103 little bugs in the code. 🎵🎵
And how long did it take to compose the “assignments?” Humans can work with less precise instructions than machines, usually, and improvise or solve problems along the way or at least sense when a problem should be flagged for escalation and review.
At the designing stage, the CEO asked the CTO to "propose a concrete programming language" that would "satisfy the new user's demand," to which the CTO responded with Python. In turn, the CEO said, "Great!" and explained that the programming language's "simplicity and readability make it a popular choice for beginners and experienced developers alike."
I find it extremely funny that project managers are the ones chatbots have learned to immitate perfectly, they already were doing the robot’s work: saying impressive sounding things that are actually borderline gibberish
What does it even mean for a programming language to "satisfy the new user's demand?" Like when has the user ever cared whether your app is built in Python or Ruby or Common Lisp?
It's like "what notebook do I need to buy to pass my exams," or "what kind of car do I need to make sure I get to work on time?"
Yet I'm 100% certain that real human executives have had equivalent conversations.
And ironically Python (with Pygame which they also used) is a terrible choice for this kind of game - they ended up making a desktop game that the user would have to download. Not playable on the web, not usable for a mobile app.
More interestingly, if decisions like these are going to be made even more based on memes and random blogposts, that creates some worrying incentives for even more spambots. Influence the training data, and you're influencing the decision making. It kind of works like that for people too, but with AI, it's supercharged to the next level.
the CTO responded with Python. In turn, the CEO said, "Great!" and explained that the programming language's "simplicity and readability make it a popular choice for beginners and experienced developers alike."
Yep, that does sound like my CEO.
Researchers, for example, tasked ChatDev to "design a basic Gomoku game," an abstract strategy board game also known as "Five in a Row."
What tech company is making Connect Four as their business model?
This is also the kind of task you would expect it to be great at - tutorial-friendly project for which there are tons of examples and articles written online, that guide the reader from start to finish.
Other things like that include TODO lists (which is even used as a task for framework comparisons), tile-based platformer games, wordle clones, flappy bird clones, chess (including online play and basic bots), URL shorteners, Twitter clones, blogging CMSs, recipe books and other basic CRUD apps.
I wasn't able to find a list of tasks in the linked paper, but based on the gomoku one, I suspect a lot of it will be things like these.
What a load of bullshit. If you have a group of researchers provide "minimal human input" to a bunch of LLMs to produce a laughable program like tic-tac-toe, then please just STFU or at least don't tell us it cost $1. This doesn't even have the efficiency of a Google search. This AI hype needs to die quick
This research seems to be more focused on whether the bots would interoperate in different roles to coordinate on a task than about creating the actual software. The idea is to reduce "halucinations" by providing each bot a more specific task.
Similar to hallucinations encountered when using LLMs for natural language querying, directly
generating entire software systems using LLMs can result in severe code hallucinations, such as
incomplete implementation, missing dependencies, and undiscovered bugs. These hallucinations
may stem from the lack of specificity in the task and the absence of cross-examination in decision-
making. To address these limitations, as Figure 1 shows, we establish a virtual chat -powered software tech nology company – CHATDEV, which comprises of recruited agents from diverse social identities, such as chief officers, professional programmers, test engineers, and art designers. When presented with a task, the diverse agents at CHATDEV collaborate to develop a required software, including
an executable system, environmental guidelines, and user manuals. This paradigm revolves around leveraging large language models as the core thinking component, enabling the agents to simulate the entire software development process, circumventing the need for additional model training and mitigating undesirable code hallucinations to some extent.
I assume the endgame of this is the boardroom suggestionguy bot asking "is this based on real facts? / does this actually function?"
This is the best summary I could come up with:
AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT can operate a software company in a quick, cost-effective manner with minimal human intervention, a new study has found.
Based on the waterfall model — a sequential approach to creating software — the company was broken down into four different stages, in chronological order: designing, coding, testing, and documenting.
After assigning ChatDev 70 different tasks, the study found that the AI-powered company was able to complete the full software development process "in under seven minutes at a cost of less than one dollar," on average — all while identifying and troubleshooting "potential vulnerabilities" through its "memory" and "self-reflection" capabilities.
"Our experimental results demonstrate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the automated software development process driven by CHATDEV," the researchers wrote in the paper.
The study's findings highlight one of the many ways powerful generative AI technologies like ChatGPT can perform specific job functions.
Nevertheless, the study isn't perfect: Researchers identified limitations, such as errors and biases in the language models, that could cause issues in the creation of software.
The original article contains 639 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Future software is going to be written by AI, no matter how much you would like to avoid that.
My speculation is that we will see AI operating systems at some point, due to the extreme effectiveness of future AI to hack and otherwise subvert frameworks, services, libraries and even protocols.
So mutating protocols will become a thing, whereby AI will change and negotiate protocols on the fly, as a war rages between defensive AI and offensive AI. There will be shared codebase, but a clear distinction of the objective at hand.
That's why we need more open source AI solutions and less proprietary solutions, because whoever controls the AI will be controlling the digital world - be it you or some fat cat sitting on a Smaug hill of money.
EDIT: gawdDAMN there's a lot of naysayers. I'm not talking stable diffusion here, guys. I'm talking about automated attacks and self developing software, when computing and computer networking reaches a point of AI supremacy. This isn't new speculation. It's coming fo dat ass, in maybe a generation or two... or more...
That all sounds pointless. Why would we want to use something built on top of a system that's constantly changing for no good reason?
Unless the accuracy can be guaranteed at 100% this theoretical will never make sense because you will ultimately end up with a system that could fail at any time for any number of reasons. Predictive models cannot be used in place of consistent, human verified and tested code.
For operating systems I can maybe see llms being used to script custom actions requested by users(with appropriate guard rails), but not much beyond that.
It's possible that we will have large software entirely written by machines in the future, but what it will be written with will not in any way resemble any architecture that currently exists.
I don't think so. Having a good architecture is far more important and makes projects actually maintainable. AI can speed up work, but humans need to tweak and review its work to make sure it fits with the exact requirements.
Future software is going to be written by AI
Of course, if you look far enough into the future. Look far enough and the whole concept of "software" itself could become obsolete.
The main disagreements are about how close that future is (years, decades, etc), and whether just expanding upon current approaches to AI will get us there, or we will need a completely different approach.
The difficult part of software development has always been the continuing support. Did the chatbot setup a versioning system, a build system, a backup system, a ticketing system, unit tests, and help docs for users. Did it get a conflicting request from two different customers and intelligently resolve them? Was it given a vague problem description that it then had to get on a call with the customer to figure out and hunt down what the customer actually wanted before devising/implementing a solution?
This is the expensive part of software development. Hiring an outsourced, low-tier programmer for almost nothing has always been possible, the low-tier programmer being slightly cheaper doesn't change the game in any meaningful way.
Yeah, I'm already quite content, if I know upfront that our customer's goal does not violate the laws of physics.
Obviously, there's also devs who code more run-of-the-mill stuff, like yet another business webpage, but those are still coded anew (and not just copy-pasted), because customers have different and complex requirements. So, even those are still quite a bit more complex than designing just any Gomoku game.
Haha, this is so true and I don't even work in IT. For me there's bonus points if the customer's initial idea is solvable within Euclidean geometry.
Now I am curious what the most outlandish request or goal has been so far?
Well, as per above, these are extremely complex requirements, so most don't make for a good story.
One of the simpler examples is that a customer wanted a solution for connecting special hardware devices across the globe, which are normally only connected directly.
Then, when we talked to experts for those devices, we learnt that for security reasons, these devices expect requests to complete within a certain timeframe. No one could tell us what these timeframes usually are, but it certainly sounded like the universe's speed limit, a.k.a. the speed of light, could get in our way (takes roughly 66 ms to go halfway around the globe).
Eventually, we learned that the customer was actually aware of this problem and was fine with a solution, even if it only worked across short distances. But yeah, we didn't know that upfront...
Absolutely true, but many direction into implementing those solution with AIs.
"I gave an LLM a wildly oversimplified version of a complex human task and it did pretty well"
For how long will we be forced to endure different versions of the same article?
Like I said yesterday, in a post celebrating how ChatGPT can do medical questions with less than 80% accuracy, that is trash. A company with absolute shit code still has virtually all of it "execute flawlessly." Whether or not code executes it not the bar by which we judge it.
Even if it were to hit 100%, which it does not, there's so much more to making things than this obviously oversimplified simulation of a tech company. Real engineering involves getting people in a room, managing stakeholders, navigating conflicting desires from different stakeholders, getting to know the human beings who need a problem solved, and so on.
LLMs are not capable of this kind of meaningful collaboration, despite all this hype.
Thank you for writing this so I only have to
upvoreupvote you.Edit: What the difference between one key can be
holy music stops
I don't know what an upvore is and I don't want to know.
Is it... vore but... upwards? So... vomiting people? Nah, I don't want to know either.
If I got vored, promptly being upvored seems like the best case scenario.
What's up, vore!
AFAIK vore is a rare fetish where someone gains sexual gratification from imagining swallowing someone whole (or imagining themselves being swallowed whole). Like the Bilquis scenes from American Gods, which I found oddly arousing.
Oh fuck.
Well, there are different kinds. Not all involve swallowing a critter whole, not all involve death, not all involve, er, mouths.
Hey wait, where's everyone going? Oh well, more vore for me 🤣Guess I should go check out American Gods. ... And look for a particular kind of place to hang out 🤔
It's not for everyone, but I loved it and was saddened that the show got cancelled. It's very surreal in places, the settings switch from standard middle America to jaw-droppingly-stunning god realm stuff.
But they could replace CEOs from what I can tell.
A monkey could replace CEOs.
Please, PLEASE do not use Elon Musk, Bezos and other such people as the training model
So what you're saying is that 86.66% of the time, it works every time.
More than 80% of most codebases is boilerplate stuff: including the right files for dependencies, declaring functions with the right number of parameters using the right syntax, handling basic easily anticipated errors, etc. Sometimes there's even more boilerplate, like when you're iterating over a list, or waiting for input and handling it.
The rest of the stuff is why programming is a highly paid job. Even a junior developer is going to be much better than an LLM at this stuff because at least they understand it's hard, and at least often know when they should ask for help because they're in over their heads. An LLM will "confidently" just spew out plausible bullshit and declare the job done.
Because an LLM won't ask for help, won't ask for clarifications, and can't understand that it might have made a mistake, you're going to need your highly paid programmers to go in and figure out what the LLM did and why it's wrong.
Even perfecting self-driving is going to be easier than a truly complex software engineering project. At least with self-driving, the constraints are going to be limited because you're dealing with the real world. The job is also always the same -- navigate from A to B. In the software world you're only limited by the limits of math, and math isn't very limiting.
I have no doubt that LLMs and generative AI will change the job of being a software engineer / programmer. But, fundamentally programming comes down to actually understanding the problem, and while LLMs can pretend they understand things, they're really just like well-trained parrots who know what sounds to make in specific situations, but with no actual understanding behind it.
But did you hear that it uses more water than regular data centers?
Which is why they're a tool for professionals to amplify their workload, not a replacement for them.
But C-suites will read articles like this and fire their development teams "because AI can do it." I have my popcorn ready for the day it begins.
"We asked a Chat Bot to solve a problem that already has a solution and it did ok."
And whose solution was part of its training set...
half the time hallucinating something crazy in the in the mix.
Another funny: Yeah, it's perfect we just need to solve this small problem of it hallucinating.
Ahemm..... solving hallucinating is the "no it actually has to understand what it is doing" part aka the actual intelligence. The actually big and hard problem. The actual understanding of what it is asked to do and what solutions to that ask are sane, rational and workable. Understanding the problem and understanding the answer, excluding wrong answers. Actual analysis, understanding and intelligence.
Not only that, but the same variables that turn on "hallucination" are the ones that make it interesting.
By the very design of generative LLMs, the same knob that makes them unpredictable makes them invent "facts". If they're 100% predictable they're useless because they just regurgitate word for word something that was in the training data. But, as soon as they're not 100% predictable they generate word sequences in a way that humans interpret as lying or hallucinating.
So, you can't have a generative LLM that is both "creative" in that it comes up with a novel set of words, without also having "hallucinations".
This isn't what makes them invent facts, or at least not the only (or main?) reason. Fake references, for example, arise because it encounters references in text, so it knows what they look like and where they should be used. It just doesn't know what one is or that it's supposed to match up to something real which says what the text implies that it says.
Right, and if it's set to a "strict" setting where it only ever uses the 100% perfect next word, if the words leading up to a reference are a match for a reference it has seen before it will spit out that specific reference from its training data. But, when it's set to be "creative", and predict words that are a good but not perfect match, it will spit out references that are plausible but don't exist.
So, if you want it to only use real references, you have to set it up to not be at all creative and always use the perfect next word. But, that setting isn't very interesting because it just word-for-word spits out whatever was in its training data. If you want it to be creative, it will "daydream" references that don't exist. The same knob controls both behaviours.
That's not how it works at all. That's not even how references work.
It cost less than a dollar to run all those chatbots?
Doubt
Please ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the corresponding electricity that was required to run the servers and infrastructure required to train and use this models, please. Or the master cracks the whip again, please, just say you'll invest in our startup, please!
Do managment next and lets see who's gonna be replaced first
They did do management-- They modeled the whole company as individual "staff" communicating with each other: CEO-bot communicates a product direction to the CTO-bot who communicates technical requirements to the developer-bot who asks for a "beautiful user interface" (lol) from the "art designer" (lol).
It's all super rudimentary and goofy, but management was definitely part of the experiment.
Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood ... but now I wonder which part of the "company" was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary.
It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card:
This is who will get replaced first, and they don't want to see it. They're the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box.
A test that doesn’t include a real commercial trial or A/B test with real human customers means nothing. Put their game in the App Store and tell us how it performs. We don’t care that it shat out code that compiled successfully. Did it produce something real and usable or just gibberish that passed 86% of its own internal unit tests, which were also gibberish?
But did it work?
As someone that uses ChatGPT daily for boilerplate code because it’s super helpful…
I call complete bullshite
The program here will be “hello world” or something like that.
Absolutely I can create a code for your app.
You may need to change the code above to fit your needs. Make sure you replace the comment with the proper code for your app to work.
Couldn't even write a void method right, return true!
LMAO. At list it didn’t
sudo void…(:"hello world" as a service?
https://github.com/salvatorecordiano/hello-world-as-a-service
It's great for things like "How do I write this kind of loop in this language" but when I asked it for something more complex like a class or a big-ish function it hallucinates. But it makes for a very fast way to get up to speed in a new language
So just a little more time-consuming than just reading the online documentation.
It's a lot less in my opinion, because you can just ask it a question rather than having to read and interpret things. Every programming tutorial in every language is going to waste my time explaining how loops and conditionals work, when all I want is how this language does them.
Seriously?
If I google for example:
The first result is https://www.w3schools.com/cs/cs_for_loop.php
In the time it took me to get to that ChatGPT would still be writing its reply.
Right, but you can't give it the variable names you're using and have it fill them in, and if you want to do something inside that loop with
I can ask ChatGPT "Write me a loop in C# that will add the variable value_increase to the variable current_value and exit when current_value is equal to or greater than the variable limit_value, with all the variables being floats"
You won't find that answer immediately on the Internet, and you're more likely to make errors synthesizing the new syntax.
But you do you, I'll keep using ChatGPT and looking like a miracle worker.
Why are you actively trying to avoid learning how to write the loop? Are you planning to have ChatGPT fill in your loop templates for the rest of your life?
It's going to be slower overall than just using the reference and learning how to do it. I really, really am skeptical that a developer at the level where they need that feature is going to seem like a miracle worker to anyone other than people who are just impressed when you can do anything with a computer.
First, how is this different from having your IDE fill in your loop templates?
Second, no, of course I learn how to do it and then copy/paste from my existing code like a normal person.
Third, this is much more customizable. The example I gave is pretty simple, but you can explain algorithms to ChatGPT and have it figure it out.
Finally, I'm usually doing this for a customer in a language I'll never use again. Last week it was LabView. My role has me writing proofs-of-concept for customers frequently so I'm not going to learn something I'll never use again.
Not when you're not familiar with the syntax and don't have an IDE set up for it.
This happens in my job a lot more than I'm comfortable with.
I don't do that actually, but I think there are some differences.
That said:
Maybe you're the one in a million exception where this approach is a benefit. Most of the time when you talk to people on the internet, they're going to assume you're a reasonably typical case and not the extremely rare exception.
If writing simple loops with ChatGPT makes you a miracle worker then you might have other problems than AI.
And even simple things break down when you ask it about using library functions (it likes to hallucinate heavily there).
It's not that writing loops does it, it's that I can ask ChatGPT to hand me pre-assembled parts that I can snap together instead of typing them out with my squishy human fingers. And I can do it for pretty much any language without too many syntax errors.
I'm a senior software developer (Currently .NET backend with DevOps). Writing code is probably less than 10% of my work day. And in that 10% Visual Studio autocomplete does most of the typing. It's frequently wrong, but it's good enough plenty of the times.
Actually working on software consists of writing specifications, security concerns, architecture, talking management out of dumb decisions, having meetings with stakeholders or other companies, working on automatic deployments, writing unit and integration tests, refactoring, performance optimizations, database migrations, bugfixing, ...
Green field writing new code is rare and that's mainly what AI can do (80% correct, maybe). Most of real programming work happens on existing code.
I'm not saying AI will write entire applications, but it is really useful at writing small bits of code for a human being to assemble which can greatly improve productivity.
Though if we could get it to handle stakeholder meetings I'll never use it for programming again.
Yea I ask it to show me examples of how to solve specific tasks. Not a whole app.
OTOH, if you take that hello world program and ask it to compose a themed cocktail menu around it, it'll cheerfully do that for you.
I can totally see the use case for boilerplate, but I’m also very very rarely writing new classes from scratch or whatever.
As always, proof of concept or gtfo
But...
So… they failed 13.34% of their own unit tests?
That’s a B+! Fire all our engineers immediately.
Better than CyberPunk at release.
🎵🎵 99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, Fix one bug, compile it again, 101 little bugs in the code. 101 little bugs in the code, 101 bugs in the code, Fix one bug, compile it again, 103 little bugs in the code. 🎵🎵
And how long did it take to compose the “assignments?” Humans can work with less precise instructions than machines, usually, and improvise or solve problems along the way or at least sense when a problem should be flagged for escalation and review.
I find it extremely funny that project managers are the ones chatbots have learned to immitate perfectly, they already were doing the robot’s work: saying impressive sounding things that are actually borderline gibberish
What does it even mean for a programming language to "satisfy the new user's demand?" Like when has the user ever cared whether your app is built in Python or Ruby or Common Lisp?
It's like "what notebook do I need to buy to pass my exams," or "what kind of car do I need to make sure I get to work on time?"
Yet I'm 100% certain that real human executives have had equivalent conversations.
And ironically Python (with Pygame which they also used) is a terrible choice for this kind of game - they ended up making a desktop game that the user would have to download. Not playable on the web, not usable for a mobile app.
More interestingly, if decisions like these are going to be made even more based on memes and random blogposts, that creates some worrying incentives for even more spambots. Influence the training data, and you're influencing the decision making. It kind of works like that for people too, but with AI, it's supercharged to the next level.
Yep, that does sound like my CEO.
What tech company is making Connect Four as their business model?
This is also the kind of task you would expect it to be great at - tutorial-friendly project for which there are tons of examples and articles written online, that guide the reader from start to finish.
The kind of thing you would get a YouTube tutorial for in 2016 with title like "make [thing] in 10 minutes!". (see https://www.google.com/search?q=flappy+bird+in+10+minutes)
Other things like that include TODO lists (which is even used as a task for framework comparisons), tile-based platformer games, wordle clones, flappy bird clones, chess (including online play and basic bots), URL shorteners, Twitter clones, blogging CMSs, recipe books and other basic CRUD apps.
I wasn't able to find a list of tasks in the linked paper, but based on the gomoku one, I suspect a lot of it will be things like these.
What a load of bullshit. If you have a group of researchers provide "minimal human input" to a bunch of LLMs to produce a laughable program like tic-tac-toe, then please just STFU or at least don't tell us it cost $1. This doesn't even have the efficiency of a Google search. This AI hype needs to die quick
This research seems to be more focused on whether the bots would interoperate in different roles to coordinate on a task than about creating the actual software. The idea is to reduce "halucinations" by providing each bot a more specific task.
The paper goes into more about this:
I assume the endgame of this is the boardroom suggestion
guybot asking "is this based on real facts? / does this actually function?"This is the best summary I could come up with:
AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT can operate a software company in a quick, cost-effective manner with minimal human intervention, a new study has found.
Based on the waterfall model — a sequential approach to creating software — the company was broken down into four different stages, in chronological order: designing, coding, testing, and documenting.
After assigning ChatDev 70 different tasks, the study found that the AI-powered company was able to complete the full software development process "in under seven minutes at a cost of less than one dollar," on average — all while identifying and troubleshooting "potential vulnerabilities" through its "memory" and "self-reflection" capabilities.
"Our experimental results demonstrate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the automated software development process driven by CHATDEV," the researchers wrote in the paper.
The study's findings highlight one of the many ways powerful generative AI technologies like ChatGPT can perform specific job functions.
Nevertheless, the study isn't perfect: Researchers identified limitations, such as errors and biases in the language models, that could cause issues in the creation of software.
The original article contains 639 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Future software is going to be written by AI, no matter how much you would like to avoid that.
My speculation is that we will see AI operating systems at some point, due to the extreme effectiveness of future AI to hack and otherwise subvert frameworks, services, libraries and even protocols.
So mutating protocols will become a thing, whereby AI will change and negotiate protocols on the fly, as a war rages between defensive AI and offensive AI. There will be shared codebase, but a clear distinction of the objective at hand.
That's why we need more open source AI solutions and less proprietary solutions, because whoever controls the AI will be controlling the digital world - be it you or some fat cat sitting on a Smaug hill of money.
EDIT: gawdDAMN there's a lot of naysayers. I'm not talking stable diffusion here, guys. I'm talking about automated attacks and self developing software, when computing and computer networking reaches a point of AI supremacy. This isn't new speculation. It's coming fo dat ass, in maybe a generation or two... or more...
That all sounds pointless. Why would we want to use something built on top of a system that's constantly changing for no good reason?
Unless the accuracy can be guaranteed at 100% this theoretical will never make sense because you will ultimately end up with a system that could fail at any time for any number of reasons. Predictive models cannot be used in place of consistent, human verified and tested code.
For operating systems I can maybe see llms being used to script custom actions requested by users(with appropriate guard rails), but not much beyond that.
It's possible that we will have large software entirely written by machines in the future, but what it will be written with will not in any way resemble any architecture that currently exists.
I don't think so. Having a good architecture is far more important and makes projects actually maintainable. AI can speed up work, but humans need to tweak and review its work to make sure it fits with the exact requirements.
Of course, if you look far enough into the future. Look far enough and the whole concept of "software" itself could become obsolete.
The main disagreements are about how close that future is (years, decades, etc), and whether just expanding upon current approaches to AI will get us there, or we will need a completely different approach.