this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
-7 points (48.4% liked)

Technology

60115 readers
2712 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're saying no code would be worth error checking by a human at all? There is no level of simpler code that an AI could get wrong and would need someone to fix it?

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My assumption is that it would even be the other way around, AI checking all human code, especially writing all the tests. So I guess AI would also write tests for it's own code too.

When it comes to humans, I think they would probably be changing the prompt they give to AI instead of changing the code at the end. You can already see how it's done with generation of pictures, while theoretically you could take a not so perfect AI picture and use Photoshop to fix it, but most of the time people change the prompt instead and regenerate the picture.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The generation of pictures is full of fuckups like giving people extra legs, so I'm not sure that's a very good example.

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why you think it's not a good example. The picture itself is code (PNG, JPEG, etc.) which some AI wrote and no human at the company has checked but it gets delivered to the customer who pays for it. It's not as good as if a human would do it, but it's way way way cheaper so you can generate a couple of times until you get what you want. So in this domain humans already are losing jobs to AI even though AI is so bad that it is giving people extra legs, etc.

The same thing happens with hallucinations of ChatGTP, which despite that is still preferable by customers to a human assistant who would summarize articles, etc. with much better quality but very low speed and very expensive.

Code is not much different from summaries of longer texts.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What human has lost their job to AI image creation?

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That article says artists are still needed to touch up the AI art, which was my whole point about people who understand code, so I think you just proved my point.

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, if your point was that instead of 90 junior programmers and 10 senior programmers before, now the 10 senior programmers will keep their job and instead of touching up the juniors code they touch up the AIs code then yes you're right, those jobs will be kept for some more time.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point:

Even if ChatGPT gets far in advance of the way it is now in terms of writing code, at the very least you’re still going to need people to go over the code as a redundancy.

Note I never said anything about the number of people.

Maybe you should read before responding.

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 1 points 1 year ago

Ok, I will do that next time ...

[–] Asudox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Until even the tests are bugged

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Have you seen tests written by humans? 😅