|
| ▲ | hermannj314 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you are a 2600 chess player, a bot that plays 1800 chess is a horrendous chess player. But you can understand why all the 1700 and below chess players say it is good and it is making them better using it for eval? Don't worry, AI will replace you one day, you are just smarter than most of us so you don't see it yet. |
| |
| ▲ | roncesvalles 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The analogy of thinking of coding AI like it's chess AI is terrible. If chess AI was at the level of coding AI, it wouldn't win a single game. This kind of thinking is actually a big reason why execs are being misinformed into overestimating LLM abilities. LLM coding agents alone are not good enough to replace any single developer. They only make a developer x% faster. That dev who is now x% faster may then allow you to lay off another dev. That is a subtle yet critical difference. |
|
|
| ▲ | AStrangeMorrow 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Idk basically everyone is my org has seen some good value out of it. We have people complaining about limitations, but would still rather have that tooling than not. For me the main difference is now some people can explain what their code does. While some other only what it wants to achieve |
|
| ▲ | tyleo 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I've been experimenting using AI for shopping This is an interesting choice for a first experiment. I wouldn't personally base AI's utility for all other things on its utility for shopping. |
| |
| ▲ | pydry 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not a first experiment it's experiment 50 or 60 and, a reaction to AI gaslighting. Most people dont really understand coding but shopping is a far simpler task and so it's easier to see how and where it fails (i.e. with even mildly complex instructions). | | |
| ▲ | tyleo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you mind sharing examples of the prompts you are using? |
|
|
