I struggle with some folks impressions of AI vs my experience.
I was working with it last night and it would create a function, and almost immediately delete it and things wouldn't work. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Like right there in your own code man you're calling a non existent function... how did you even "know" what parameters to send it?
Sure I can get a bit of a nice greenfield project going, and some focused changes if I can put blinders on it and hold AI's hand. But after that I'm prompting it to put back code it deletes for no known reason. It seems to lose focus and think it is working on something else ... forget initial guidelines.
Code also has built in assumptions that aren't apparent and AI does not seem to care. This is hard for humans, but also seemingly impossible for AI. "We handle our X,Y,Z like A,B,C for reasons." only seems to keep AI on the ball for a short bit of time. AI has no ability to UNDERSTAND "oh yeah that will blow up because L,M,N" like a human does, and no matter how foolish the prompt AI will do it.
If you did that today, what percentage of the time would the change improve the software? What percent of the time would it make it worse (security, usability, accuracy, or whatever)?
I think that today, this approach would work on some days. Some days it would fail, perhaps catastrophically. (I don't know the percentages, though. Does anyone have enough experience to comment?)
I struggle with some folks impressions of AI vs my experience.
I was working with it last night and it would create a function, and almost immediately delete it and things wouldn't work. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Like right there in your own code man you're calling a non existent function... how did you even "know" what parameters to send it?
Sure I can get a bit of a nice greenfield project going, and some focused changes if I can put blinders on it and hold AI's hand. But after that I'm prompting it to put back code it deletes for no known reason. It seems to lose focus and think it is working on something else ... forget initial guidelines.
Code also has built in assumptions that aren't apparent and AI does not seem to care. This is hard for humans, but also seemingly impossible for AI. "We handle our X,Y,Z like A,B,C for reasons." only seems to keep AI on the ball for a short bit of time. AI has no ability to UNDERSTAND "oh yeah that will blow up because L,M,N" like a human does, and no matter how foolish the prompt AI will do it.
Without a human in the loop?
If you did that today, what percentage of the time would the change improve the software? What percent of the time would it make it worse (security, usability, accuracy, or whatever)?
I think that today, this approach would work on some days. Some days it would fail, perhaps catastrophically. (I don't know the percentages, though. Does anyone have enough experience to comment?)
You can still put a human in the loop of course, only merging PRs that are actually an improvement.