A decade ago the 'creative class' believed the working class would soon be made obsolete through automation, and all the right-wing factory workers and coal miners would have to either grovel for entry level office jobs where they'd be at the mercy of browbeating HR commissars, or become destitute and starve. Turns out replacing everyone with robots isn't going to happen for a while because that shit is expensive and difficult (can attest, I work at a plant where they've been trying to automate and it's been a boondoggle). Meanwhile AI is advancing so much that it will seemingly make many writing, illustrating, animating, and coding jobs obsolete soon. A lot sooner than manual labor jobs, that's for sure.
You've not seen databricks helper fuck up the way I've seen it fuck up.
We are in no danger of AI becoming the next UNISYS MAPPER (the marketing pitch), because AI is the next UNISYS MAPPER (the actual product): great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else.
great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else
This is pretty much my take on it. Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity. There are a handful of people I trust who endorse it, but when pressed about it you'll discover that their process for extracting useful results from it involves so much fiddling and exacting specification that you may as well just write the code yourself because you pretty much already have and the extra time it'll take to debug the hallucinations makes it a wash or net negative.
Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity.
Uhh ... I'm currently using Grok to help me work on and analyze a novel algorithm. ~2k lines of pretty dense C++ code with lots of math, bit twiddling, and custom data structures (think interleaved linked lists stored in a single std::vector).
I'm continually astounded by how deeply it understands the operation of the code. I ask it to generate unit tests for edge cases and it just does it. I point out a bug in the output and ask it for a solution and it nearly always gives me a good starting point to get it fixed, if not an outright fix.
It's really damn impressive. It's definitely not perfect, but if I'd had access to this earlier on the project, I have already identified several months worth of hacking and experimentation that it would have saved because its suggestions are that good.
I've not touched Grok so maybe that's better than the handful of models I've tried. I think there's probably some measure of utility in using it as a summary generator, but I remain steadfast in my wariness of it as a tool to generate code.
A decade ago the 'creative class' believed the working class would soon be made obsolete through automation, and all the right-wing factory workers and coal miners would have to either grovel for entry level office jobs where they'd be at the mercy of browbeating HR commissars, or become destitute and starve. Turns out replacing everyone with robots isn't going to happen for a while because that shit is expensive and difficult (can attest, I work at a plant where they've been trying to automate and it's been a boondoggle). Meanwhile AI is advancing so much that it will seemingly make many writing, illustrating, animating, and coding jobs obsolete soon. A lot sooner than manual labor jobs, that's for sure.
You've not seen databricks helper fuck up the way I've seen it fuck up.
We are in no danger of AI becoming the next UNISYS MAPPER (the marketing pitch), because AI is the next UNISYS MAPPER (the actual product): great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else.
So it makes pajeet codemonkeys obsolete.
It's the exact same Stack Overflow -> production pipeline, but with fewer typos and cut/paste errors.
Sounds good to me!
What do you think it's trained on?
This is pretty much my take on it. Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity. There are a handful of people I trust who endorse it, but when pressed about it you'll discover that their process for extracting useful results from it involves so much fiddling and exacting specification that you may as well just write the code yourself because you pretty much already have and the extra time it'll take to debug the hallucinations makes it a wash or net negative.
Uhh ... I'm currently using Grok to help me work on and analyze a novel algorithm. ~2k lines of pretty dense C++ code with lots of math, bit twiddling, and custom data structures (think interleaved linked lists stored in a single std::vector).
I'm continually astounded by how deeply it understands the operation of the code. I ask it to generate unit tests for edge cases and it just does it. I point out a bug in the output and ask it for a solution and it nearly always gives me a good starting point to get it fixed, if not an outright fix.
It's really damn impressive. It's definitely not perfect, but if I'd had access to this earlier on the project, I have already identified several months worth of hacking and experimentation that it would have saved because its suggestions are that good.
I've not touched Grok so maybe that's better than the handful of models I've tried. I think there's probably some measure of utility in using it as a summary generator, but I remain steadfast in my wariness of it as a tool to generate code.