• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.