[HN Gopher] I'm not a programmer, and I used AI to build my firs...
___________________________________________________________________
I'm not a programmer, and I used AI to build my first bot
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 79 points
Date : 2023-10-05 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.replit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.replit.com)
| dom96 wrote:
| Interesting, I think Replit can bring a lot to this. I did a
| little experiment where I asked my partner to use ChatGPT to
| write a Python script to solve a file comparison task, the
| biggest challenge was the tooling (VS Code, terminal, etc),
| something which I would expect Replit can make much easier. I did
| a write up of it here: https://blog.picheta.me/can-chatgpt-help-
| my-non-coder-partne....
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| Have a look at my open source tool aider. It is really focused
| on a smooth "AI pair programming" chat workflow, and directly
| integrates with your local git repo.
|
| https://github.com/paul-gauthier/aider
| m3kw9 wrote:
| This means you are already a programmer
| adenwill515 wrote:
| [dead]
| dev_throw wrote:
| All good until we get a new vector of subtly poisoned training
| data introducing vulnerabilities if one doesn't understand the
| generated code.
| __loam wrote:
| This is probably the funniest consequence of these models. Pre
| gpt training data is going to be like the radiologically inert
| steel we need to scavenge from sunken warships.
| [deleted]
| ryanklee wrote:
| How is this any different from the mountains of shitty code
| produced every hour by millions of shitty developers
| everywhere?
|
| This form of argument appears in every thread about LLMs: They
| are fallible, what will we ever do?!
|
| As if people haven't been fallible in both the same and
| different ways all along. How have we ever managed...
| lionkor wrote:
| It's different because people who use LLMs like this dont
| expect the output to be malicious or wrong
| jeremypress wrote:
| I work with the OP and i can attest he really did not know how to
| program before he tried this. I'll still help you debug Jeff
| don't worry
| stkenned wrote:
| Also work with OP and can confirm: showed up with no natural
| talent for it. Just amazing progress, buddy.
| sjducb wrote:
| Op did study math. Most ppl who studied maths can learn to
| program fairly easily.
| tomrod wrote:
| I love seeing stories like this.
|
| The ability to write code and perform in-depth engineering is a
| fantastic skillset. It's also relatively rare for it to be done
| well.
|
| For the easy to potentially middling cases, AI-generated
| applications are going to help a lot.
|
| The downside is now there is pressure for quantity over quality.
| Might be fuzzy in the market for awhile.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| > The downside is now there is pressure for quantity over
| quality. Might be fuzzy in the market for awhile.
|
| I don't know, it's been that way for a while now, hasn't it?
| Every C level / product manager bombarded with "new tool /
| language this", "new tool / language that" hype, when often its
| a bunch of noise and only a small selection are likely the
| correct choice for the org.
| [deleted]
| shapenamer wrote:
| Kinda curious what the author's stance on using AI to create art
| is.
| minimaxir wrote:
| This post has no relationship to the current copyright/ethics
| battles of generative AI.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Sure it does. The AI that was used was trained on copyright
| material.
| djmips wrote:
| 'no relationship' is too strong.
| shapenamer wrote:
| Why not? It was trained on other people's work.
| minimaxir wrote:
| For one, the post isn't about AI art in any way, which
| makes your comment appear as a low effort drive-by.
|
| Second, the use case described in the submission is
| functional and internal-only, and does not deprive or have
| the potential to deprive software developers or artists of
| any lost revenue or recognition. It's purely a reflective
| experiment.
|
| There's some nuance into the scope of generative AI, which
| normally Hacker News does well at discussing. But kneejerk
| "AI art is theft" comments only serve to discourage people
| from sharing their experiences with AI.
| shapenamer wrote:
| Well I never said the article had anything to do with AI
| art. I have simply noticed a pattern of almost everyone
| agreeing that AI generated art is bad and harms real
| artists, while simultaneously agreeing that AI generated
| code is great and only helps programmers. My post was
| fairly low effort though I'll give you that. It seems to
| have pushed a few people's buttons none the less lol.
|
| There's another story on HN posted today about balancing
| money and meaning and one of the top comments is a
| sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at the top
| of the blog post. If the author had used AI to create the
| web page they'd almost certainly receive similar praise
| as the comments on this one. Both AI's are trained on
| other people's work, yet you seem to think even pointing
| this out is unfair. Very strange imo.
| minimaxir wrote:
| > There's another story on HN posted today about
| balancing money and meaning and one of the top comments
| is a sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at
| the top of the blog post. If the author had used AI to
| create the web page they'd almost certainly receive
| similar praise as the comments on this one. Both AI's are
| trained on other people's work, yet you seem to think
| even pointing this out is unfair. Very strange imo
|
| Most of the comments on that submission are negatively
| and fairly accusing it of being ChatGPT generated:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779591
|
| That submission also appears to have been
| flagged/penalized, so yes, people aren't happy with it.
|
| There is a significant difference between using AI for a
| functional purpose that others can learn from and using
| AI for low-effort marketing blogspam.
| shapenamer wrote:
| right, the text content was AI generated, and people
| don't like that. But if any of the tech was AI generated
| then the author would receive praise.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I think the issue is the defiance in the headline.
|
| So I could write an article about prompt engineering with
| AI art and use the headline "I made an amazing art for my
| blog without ever taking an art class!"
|
| For example:
|
| https://medium.com/geekculture/i-used-ai-to-create-
| marvelous...
| minimaxir wrote:
| There's a difference between the implied "I'm a
| programming newbie and AI helped me solve tough problems
| I couldn't otherwise do" and the arrogant "with AI, you
| don't need to learn how to code!" I am also not a fan of
| the latter.
|
| Either way, it's irrelevant to the GP's comment.
| __loam wrote:
| AI code is theft too. A lot of the code it's trained on
| is copyleft. If you use code from copyleft projects, your
| project is copyleft, you might just not know it. AI
| coding systems like copilot benefit hugely from the FOSS
| ecosystem, but they launder away the license which means
| they're not contributing anything back to FOSS.
|
| None of this is knee-jerk. These systems alienate massive
| amounts of labor from the people and communities that did
| that labor. There is a huge amount of risk involved with
| mass adoption of this technology that most people on
| hackernews seem content to either ignore or say it's not
| relevant to the discussion like you are.
| bethecloud wrote:
| I love using replit to write tools for completing small tasks. I
| recently used it to send out a SMS via twilio to my entire hs
| class for our 10 year reunion.
| ianbutler wrote:
| You are now! It's the act of solving the problem not the code
| itself that entirely matters. Code is simply an unfortunate
| vehicle to do so. I've been programming for almost 20 years now,
| 10 professionally and I love it. I also maintain that for a lot
| of the programming that makes the world go round, it's not that
| hard. People just convince themselves they won't be able to.
|
| LLMs have supercharged me as an experienced dev, not writing
| code[0], but rubber ducking[1] with something that talks back and
| I can ask my question in an infinite amount of stupid ways and it
| won't balk.
|
| If it can do that for me, designing a database, it's about to
| introduce a whole new wider range of "I'm not a programmer"s into
| being programmers. Good timing too, the world needs it.
|
| I know particularly prickly devs will be annoyed by people they
| see as not true developers, but, and sorry to be so blunt, fuck
| em. It's short sighted because if you're as deep and skilled as
| you think you are, you won't intersect with this new wave of
| programmers anyway.
|
| [0] I stopped using copilot, it got in my way too frequently even
| after initially liking it. [1] I use GPT4 and I intend to publish
| my entire history of my back and forths I've had with it for
| designing a database after I release my project, but it basically
| just let's me bounce ideas off it. The caveat is this area is not
| unfamiliar to me, and the techniques I'm discussing I know enough
| about to call bullshit on when I see it.
| qsort wrote:
| > People just convince themselves they won't be able to.
|
| As they say, there are two kinds of people: those who think
| they can program and those who think they cannot, and they are
| both right.
|
| I'm not on the LLM hype train either, but if they can get more
| people involved with programming that's genuinely awesome!
| Everyone has to start somewhere, is typing random stuff into
| Turbo C or whatever else was the "first contact" point of your
| generation really any better?
| ianbutler wrote:
| Right exactly, for me It was https://www.byond.com/ with
| their C like language Dream. Had their manual open on the
| left and their game editor on the right and when I made the
| low quality fireball move for the first time, the rest, as
| they say, is history.
|
| If, for this next generation, it's an LLM on Replit, that's
| genuinely awesome.
| [deleted]
| jsight wrote:
| Yeah, I'm noticing the same thing. I have a lot of questions
| that could be Stackoverflow questions.
|
| But to do that, I'd have to make sure there are no duplicates
| and frame the question with every appropriate detail.
|
| Or, I could just have a quick conv with the AI. Sure, it'll get
| some things wrong, but so will SO answers. :) And it is amazing
| at how clarifying it can be. Even the wrong answers are
| sometimes a clue that the questions themselves are a little
| off.
| menacingly wrote:
| I'm trying to think of a worse outcome for a QA site than the
| anxiety a lot of people need to overcome to post to SO.
|
| I'd like numbers on what % of questions are scolded for
| having been asked
| sublinear wrote:
| The next iteration of chat bot can't possibly avoid being
| this way either.
|
| Collaboration on writing a better question is the only way
| its answers could get to the next level and customized for
| your specific use case. I'm imagining it spinning up a
| generated SO clone for you to browse and scolding you just
| the same (but at least giving you a decent link), or at
| least asking why an answer you found isn't good enough.
|
| The way collaborating with AI works now is too wordy and
| error prone. You don't know what you don't know. Chat bots
| still don't talk back much and that's a problem.
|
| When we get to this level of AI, maybe some people will
| finally understand that getting your expectations broken is
| not a form of hostile communication.
| sensanaty wrote:
| I've literally never had a SO question
| deleted/downvoted/any of the other stuff.
|
| Just think of a genuinely good question and show you've
| done a modicum of research and people will happily reply to
| it
| menacingly wrote:
| I love the profoundly flawed "you should have searched"
| logic. Nearly everyone who got there did so because a
| google search failed. The first step in this process _is_
| a search.
|
| You're being whined at for not knowing the very specific
| incantation which will summon the results. Which, if you
| knew, you likely wouldn't need to ask anyway.
|
| "You're stupid and your question is stupid. I forbid
| answers. I will keep it up and nofollow all of the
| scalped resources it links to in the hopes others can
| come here and benefit from this lack of answer"
| seanthemon wrote:
| Marked as duplicate, use the search next time won't you??
| bobsmooth wrote:
| How can you do research if you don't know what you don't
| know?
| sensanaty wrote:
| How do you expect anyone to help you if you don't know
| what to ask? You have to at least have a starting point,
| and that's usually more than enough on SO.
|
| stackoverflow.com/users/8610114/sensanaty
|
| Seriously just check out questions I've asked on SO.
| They're nothing groundbreaking, a lot of them are pretty
| beginner/basic questions, yet I've never really had
| adverse reactions to any one of my questions. Some go
| unanswered sure, and I might have one or two marked as
| dupes (they are more or less) but if you've ever browser
| the "new" portion of the site it's inundated with hudreds
| of shitty, low effort questions, so it's understandable.
|
| SO is also an excellent jumping off point for figuring it
| out yourself. I've had dozens of times where I figured
| out a solution midway through typing a question, since
| you have to make good quality questions there in the
| first place.
| KMag wrote:
| I'd also love to see the % of scoldings that miss an
| important subtle difference in the questions being asked.
| blibble wrote:
| this works for the now as there was plenty of data to
| parasitise, sorry, train from
|
| technology moves on
|
| in 2030, when stackoverflow have folded due to lack of
| visitors, and all new data on new libraries/APIs are locked
| up beyond OpenAI's reach
|
| how useful is the AI going to be?
|
| the whole thing sows the seeds of its own destruction
| bobsmooth wrote:
| >in 2030, when stackoverflow have folded due to lack of
| visitors, and all new data on new libraries/APIs are locked
| up beyond OpenAI's reach
|
| Then I download the docs and feed it into the LLM I have
| running locally.
| JieJie wrote:
| I hear what you are saying. What I think that what you're
| missing is that subsequent conversations with AI, where
| humans and AI solve problems together, is what the next
| generation of AI is going to be trained on. That data is
| being collected every time someone interacts with a
| chatbot, which is why they are being provided -- so many of
| them - as a free service.
|
| It is, as before: if the service is free, you are the
| product.
|
| That being said, I think that to the extent AI is an
| actually helpful product, as opposed to social media,
| public forums, or free video hosting, the tradeoff is way
| more worthwhile. In my most humble opinion. I'm sure your
| calculus will lead to different outcomes.
| blibble wrote:
| only in very rare cases will the data from the
| interaction actually be useful for training, simply
| because the final version is rarely supplied to it
|
| yes, it's asked to produce something, but it won't see
| the result after substantial effort required to actually
| make it work
|
| the interaction is not going to be nearly enough to
| produce useful training data to replace e.g.
| stackoverflow
| aperrien wrote:
| Even open source API's?
| blibble wrote:
| what open source?
|
| if the fair use lawsuit succeeds and copyright protection
| over open source is essentially terminated: what
| companies are going to open source anything?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Probably still very useful
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the world is not a function of one person at a time; this
| cheerful cheerleading is appropriate for pre-teens, and really
| does work. On the other hand, this narrative plays directly
| into the hands of employers who seek to devalue and routinize
| complex tasks, delay or withhold career advancement, outsource
| or sub-contract, or generally jump on the current worldwide
| trend of firing high skill people and then re-offering lower
| pay jobs with constraint.
|
| Lastly, there is no distinction here between ephemeral code
| like this week's JS, versus domain knowledge and abstraction
| like an engineer or architect.
|
| personal take - the enthusiastic F-U sounds like stimulants
| talking...
| ianbutler wrote:
| Nope just my birthday :)
|
| I'm usually a thorough pessimist, your comment just goes to
| show can't win either way.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| > but rubber ducking
|
| I rather my rubber duck didn't tell me lies though. I really
| hate it when I'm given incorrect information - a waste of my
| time.
| ianbutler wrote:
| GPT4 has been outright wrong for me only a handful of times.
| I know this because I typically have an academic paper for
| the topic I'm working through next to me and knowledgable
| friends who I discuss things with as well. I'm rarely using
| GPT4 for things like syntax or APIs which can be easily
| looked up elsewhere. I also rarely ask it to write code.
|
| I know mileage may vary, but I just haven't had this often
| quoted (but I suspect actually less first hand experienced)
| situation when it comes to development.
| aantix wrote:
| Does it bother you when your colleagues are wrong as well?
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| My colleagues usually let me know when they're not sure
| about something, and that they might be wrong.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| I hate it when I'm wrong as well. Doesn't matter the
| source.
|
| Bad information is worse than no information.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Just came here it say this!
| fhd2 wrote:
| Absolutely agree. Those tools you use don't happen to work for
| me, but that's entirely beside the point. We shouldn't look
| down on people based on what tools do or do not work for them.
| What matters is whether they solve the problem and if they can
| maintain and expand the systems they build. If they can't, they
| can always get help. If they can, that's cool too, the amount
| of problems that need solving in the world seem about infinite
| from a practical perspective.
|
| I see "no code" tools the same way: It _is_ code, visual
| programming is programming too. If that works for you, that's
| cool.
|
| One of the main things I do in my CTO/consulting work is
| ironically to reduce the fear "non-programmers" often have of
| software. If they can program to some degree, my experience is
| that they'll respect the "real" programmers more - and
| collaborate better.
| asddubs wrote:
| i don't think you're a programmer if you do not at least
| understand code. it's not elitism, it's just a definition. you
| don't have to be an expert or even understand it well, but if
| you're just interacting with a chatbot and copying and pasting
| without knowing anything about it, you are not a programmer.
| what's next, if i execute a program on my computer I'm a
| developer because it solves my problem?
| reidjs wrote:
| Similarly, just because you can change your oil that doesn't
| make you a mechanic. Making a one off program to solve a
| problem doesn't warrant the title necessarily. Not that the
| title matters, though.
| cgriswald wrote:
| Its hard to take meaning from your definition of programmer
| since you haven't defined code. As I understand 'code', it's
| just an interface for programming, not definitional.
|
| Consider the Python function 'max', which, given an iterable,
| will return the iterables biggest item. Now suppose I ask
| ChatGPT to generate a function (in whatever language you
| like) called 'max' that does the same thing and it returns a
| block of code that I copy and paste.
|
| In what way is Python's 'max' meaningfully different from
| ChatGPT's 'max'? It seems to me that these are essentially
| both just higher-level abstractions.
| asddubs wrote:
| maybe you can argue the case that chatgpt is a programmer,
| but all the human is doing here is making requests and
| copying and pasting. is a manager a programmer?
|
| or, to put it another way, if everyone is a programmer, the
| word is meaningless.
| piotrkaminski wrote:
| Are you not a programmer because you use a compiler and
| "paste" its output into the executable? Or an assembler,
| instead of flipping bits by hand in memory? Are people
| making complex spreadsheets with hundreds of formulas not
| programmers?
|
| We've been raising the level of abstraction in code for
| decades and it looks like LLMs might just be the next
| level up. Yes, using LLMs will put more complex code
| within reach of more people but I'm sure it won't be
| nearly everyone, and I bet that it'll raise the ceiling
| of what the best programmers can do at the same time.
|
| Of course, we're free to redefine what "programmer" means
| at any time as well, if a new definition proves to be
| more useful.
| bobbiechen wrote:
| Echoes of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
| thought experiment here.
| croes wrote:
| Am I an artist if I let Midjourney create an image for me
| chank wrote:
| No, you're an art "producer" in the same fashion of music
| producers who are not musicians, but still create music.
| diggan wrote:
| Honest question: Where is the line drawn between music
| producers and musicians? Playing instruments? Using
| samples?
| chank wrote:
| Areas of responsibility. The producer is the person
| ultimately responsible for the output. You can be a
| producer and not know a lick about good musicianship or
| play an instrument, but you have good taste and can use
| tools (samples, software, etc) to take what others have
| done to make something others will like/use/pay for/etc.
| scj wrote:
| AI aside, does compiling using gcc with -S make someone an
| assembly programmer?
|
| Doing so helped me become a better assembly programmer.
| tacheiordache wrote:
| >Am I an artist if I let Midjourney create an image for me
|
| There are two answers:
|
| a) No, that only proves you can type. b) Yes, you are an
| artist just like everybody else.
| slingnow wrote:
| stranger: Hey guys, my car was making a weird squealing sound
| the other day. Not knowing anything about cars, I went in there
| with a hammer and methodically hit everything I saw that was
| moving. Eventually the squealing stopped.
|
| ianbutler: Congratulations! You're a car mechanic! And to be
| blunt, fuck anyone who disagrees with me!
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Its ok to feel anxiety around something that seemingly
| challenges your identity, but you don't have to fight so hard
| to hold on to such an unimportant part of your identity.
|
| Nobody _is_ a programmer, really. We live in particular
| moment of the world where this new idea of
| professionalization tricks you into thinking sometimes what
| you _are_ is first and foremost defined by what you trade on
| the labor market. And this is an especially potent spell for
| those, like us, who for right now particularly well
| compensated in this market. But either way you must try not
| to forget that this is just a kind of illusion. That we are
| more united by shared capacity than discriminated by
| "skill".
|
| Why not take joy in the idea that what you have devoted
| yourself to, presumably, can be a more shared and understood
| thing for the world at large than that of a doctor or college
| professor?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| engineer: do you need bonded insurance on this project?
| architect: do you want common design themes in the parts of
| this project? Philosopher: would you like frys with your
| burger sir?
| claytongulick wrote:
| > Nobody is a programmer, really
|
| Huh. So, being almost 50, having spent 35 of those years
| writing code and orienting the majority of my life around
| it - somehow that's separate from my identity?
|
| Do tell.
| krapp wrote:
| Skill exists. Some of us are programmers. Some of us are
| artists, musicians, writers, photographers, engineers. The
| time we put into our craft, learning, practicing, has real
| value. AI does not replicate that value, at best it only
| steals it. We aren't united by shared capacity, because the
| capacity belongs to the AI, not to you. We don't share
| understanding because, when a black box does all the work,
| there's nothing for you to understand.
|
| You're standing in the dojo wearing the black belt you
| bought at Wal-Mart and condescending to the masters for
| acting as if any of the discipline and hard work they put
| in meant anything, because look - you have the same belt as
| everyone else, and didn't have to do shit for it.
|
| This is why people hate AI and the people who use it.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| >This is why people hate AI and the people who use it.
|
| And you all sound like luddites.
| krapp wrote:
| And you don't understand what the Luddites were about,
| because they weren't wrong.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Yes, they were. Technology always advances. You either
| adapt or get left behind. You're just mad because after
| 100 years of industrialization it's finally coming after
| your job.
| AlmostGreyBeard wrote:
| Nobody is real, everything is an illusion defined by your
| interpretation. Please. There is a standard definition of
| what a programmer is. Dood that had an llm create his code
| is not a programmer. You have to actually write code to
| program..
| redlohr wrote:
| I've taken to using both vim and nvim, with nvim having
| copilot. There are times when I'm going in, knowing that I'm
| re-inventing the wheel, or that I'm refactoring. For those
| times when I feel like copilot would just get in the way
| there's vim.
|
| Both copilot and GPT4 have been wonderful 80/20 tools in
| different ways, and give a remarkable new way to learn.
| galaxyofdoom wrote:
| https://intuitiveexplanations.com/tech/replit/
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27424195
| gumballindie wrote:
| I knew nothing about replit prior to this post and upon reading
| it and the claim of "20 million software creators building on
| Replit" i knew there was something dodgy about this company.
| Your links confirmed it.
| swyx wrote:
| look i'm admittedly replit friendly (tho no vested interest
| whatsoever) but how does one badly handled issue with an
| intern, make the entire company's 20m registered user claim
| "dodgy"? its a very short path from there to wire fraud and i
| dont think they will go anywhere near there.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| 2000: Hey dude can you fix my computer?
|
| 2023: Hey dude can you fix my program?
|
| I predict this is all LLMs are going to result in.
| brap wrote:
| Imagine having a person on your team who never learned
| programming, and just uses AI to generate code
| tiznow wrote:
| Wait like 2-3 years and while you won't know it, you won't have
| to imagine it.
| Gigachad wrote:
| You basically have this everywhere, non programmers building
| simple automations in excel, building simple websites with
| squarespace, now they can build simple chatbots as well.
| Meanwhile the full time programmers move slightly up to more
| complex tasks.
| j0hnyl wrote:
| This wouldn't be good for an engineering team, but it would be
| great for almost any other team that doesn't have a strong
| sense of what to automate and how.
| thwarted wrote:
| _would be great for almost any other team that doesn 't have
| a strong sense of what to automate and how_
|
| The "what" is always the hardest part, both to acknowledge as
| being necessary and to get right.
| j0hnyl wrote:
| The "what" is the hard part, yes, but the other hard part
| is finding the bandwith to get the business to build this
| automation. LLMs empower non-engineers with a technical
| bent to create helpful solutions for themselves.
| krapp wrote:
| The reality of this is the only engineers involved will be
| "prompt engineers."
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The world is full of devs who do not know how to code
| spandextwins wrote:
| [flagged]
| footy wrote:
| I think if I worked somewhere where the other employees (or
| worse,the higher ups) talked about me that way I'd produce shit
| code too. Doing more than the bare minimum is reserved for
| places where I'm respected, and I doubt I'm the only one.
| efnx wrote:
| Really? And which model? What kind of setup are you using?
| redox99 wrote:
| > Now we've transitioned to mostly AI writing the bulk of the
| code with the senior developers still doing their thing.
|
| > We've found the code quality coming out of our AI is a lot
| better than the H1b's could produce.
|
| That sounds weird. In my testing GPT4 falls apart for
| medium/large codebases. It's good for small microservices
| though.
| screamingninja wrote:
| > We've found the code quality coming out of our AI is a lot
| better than the H1b's could produce.
|
| Are you seriously perpetuating stereotypes against a set of
| people based on their immigration status?
| jrflowers wrote:
| Of course not, why would you write "cheap" when you can write
| "h1b"? Referring to people by only the noun of their
| immigration status with no other information in no way has
| any reflection on how GP thinks about anyone based on their
| immigration status.
| codeisawesome wrote:
| Yep, and what's more, I'm sure that commenter is not
| referring to, say, ethnically German or French visa holders
| when disparaging "all those H1Bs" ;) I've learned to not be
| surprised by the persistent and nasty 'community' of these
| types of commenters here on HN, fortunately they're not the
| majority.
| __loam wrote:
| [flagged]
| lmm wrote:
| An immigration status that's routinely abused to bring in
| underpaid workers to suppress wages; it's not a personal
| attack to say that those exploited workers will generally be
| low-skill, any more than stereotyping PHBs or management
| consultants or first-year students as ignorant is.
| AlmostGreyBeard wrote:
| No, he's saying he had cheap coders creating cheap code.
| spandextwins wrote:
| Absolutely.
| Imnimo wrote:
| Does Replit Ghostwriter reference live documentation of the API
| you're asking for, or is this just coasting on having memorized a
| recent version of the Slack API? If the latter, this seems like a
| completely unsustainable approach to development. What happens
| when an API change is introduced and none of the code Ghostwriter
| is giving you works, and its explanations of the API are all
| wrong?
| tiznow wrote:
| I am learning programming -- or rather, relearning programming
| from a middle school/high school course basis into further
| achievement. While I believe that using AI to "code for you" is
| just undercutting your potential to be any sort of "good"
| programmer, using AI to learn and ask questions repeatedly
| without fear of judgment is the key.
|
| That being said, using AI to code can just screw you over by
| presenting bad code, faulty code or the LLM simply not
| understanding the demands. It's not a tool to use in lieu of
| actually knowing/learning how to code and understanding the
| programming language in question.
| __loam wrote:
| Yer a programmer Harry
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-05 23:01 UTC)