| ▲ | walrus01 4 hours ago | |||||||
> they found bits of code that are associated with "math" and the supplied arguments How is this different from a human using an algorithm they have memorized, or reading it from a reference site written by a human and then writing the same formula into a custom one off piece of python code? I could have gone and spent a couple of days teaching myself the math behind Karney and reading its reference implementation (very possibly just copy/pasting big chunks of it to save time) and writing a wrapper around it. It would have produced the same result. | ||||||||
| ▲ | AdieuToLogic 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
>> they found bits of code that are associated with "math" and the supplied arguments > How is this different from a human using an algorithm they have memorized, or reading it from a reference site written by a human and then writing the same formula into a custom one off piece of python code? Humans identify which "algorithm they have memorized" to use beforehand, due to the problem to be solved being defined by other humans, which leads to... Wait for it... Understanding. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | noduerme 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
If by "result" you mean the final code, then just asking someone else who understood the math to write it would also have achieved the same result. On the other hand, if by "result" you mean that you gained knowledge or understanding of the code in a way where you could personally tailor its behavior to specific circumstances without asking for help, then it's not the same result at all. I find a lot of the arguments that having LLMs write your code is no different from copy/pasting Stack Overflow answers to be specious. They blur the line between asking for help and asking for someone else (or something else) to do the work for you. What they ignore is that doing the work yourself has ancillary benefits and is a valuable end in its own right. | ||||||||