<story><title>Show HN: Whole Git repo was made with ChatGPT</title><url>https://github.com/vrescobar/chatGPT-python-elm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rightbyte</author><text>Ye I signed up and tried some queries. It was quite scary.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Write a function that sorts the elements of a c string backwards, in C.&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Add a flag to the sort function which makes it sort the string forward.&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Could you write a endian swap function for double argument in PIC assembler?&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Could you write a binary sort in PIC 8-bit assembler&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Write a Javascript function that prints the day of the week together with some Chinese words of wisdom.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It had no problem doing any one those. I ran them all, except the assembler ones.&lt;p&gt;The question is how good it is to process larger chunks of code and makes changes to it.&lt;p&gt;People thinking about becoming programmers might need to rethink their plans if this one improves ...&lt;p&gt;EDIT:
Oh dear. I introduced bugs in its sort code and it found them and explained what they did.</text></item><item><author>jchw</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m sure this line of logic is very comforting, but frankly, this comfort disappears quickly when you actually &lt;i&gt;use&lt;/i&gt; ChatGPT. What you find is that you can interact with it in a quite natural way, and it is able to synthesize and iterate at a level that feels easily on par with a moderately skilled human software engineer. I know it&amp;#x27;s uncomfortable, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t even matter if the machine is &amp;quot;non-intelligent.&amp;quot; Nobody gives a damn. What matters is what you can do with it, and every iteration of GPT the goal posts keep moving further, but this time it&amp;#x27;s really difficult to deny: you really, really can describe a program at a high level and ChatGPT can implement it. You can point out an error and it can fix it. Hell, you can feed it compiler errors.&lt;p&gt;Is it literally as good as a human software engineer? No, but it&amp;#x27;s also better too. I doubt ChatGPT could debug as effectively as a veteran software engineer (... In fairness, most humans can&amp;#x27;t either.) It can debug pretty decently, but there&amp;#x27;s still work there. That said, the breadth of knowledge encoded in a language model is stunning. I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure you can&amp;#x27;t just regurgitate an implementation of the discrete cosine transform in Rust without at least pulling up Wikipedia, but ChatGPT can, because well. It doesn&amp;#x27;t have to pull it up.&lt;p&gt;I still don&amp;#x27;t think ChatGPT is ready to replace human programmers. It may be a long time before we have general enough intelligence to replace knowledge work meaningfully with AI. However, if you think it&amp;#x27;s not happening ever, because machines are not &amp;quot;intelligent&amp;quot; based on some set of goal posts, I&amp;#x27;ve got bad news: that&amp;#x27;s not part of the job listing.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s easy to laugh at MSN publishing articles written by GPT; that&amp;#x27;s just stupid. However, at some level you have to admit that the input to ChatGPT is almost as high level as directives from project managers, and the output is almost low level enough to simply input directly into source control. That leaves very little to the imagination for how this could quickly spiral out of control.</text></item><item><author>dkjaudyeqooe</author><text>I guess we can look forward to weeks of &amp;quot;Show HN: $X created by ChatGPT&amp;quot; but people should be cautioned not to read to much into these results. Always remember that almost all of what is being presented here is the work of humans, regurgitated by a very much non-intelligent machine, despite its name. It&amp;#x27;s basically:&lt;p&gt;Human creation -&amp;gt; ChatGPT -&amp;gt; Human query -&amp;gt; Human interpretation&lt;p&gt;The last bit, the interpretation, is particularly important. Just like we&amp;#x27;re predisposed to seeing faces everywhere, we&amp;#x27;re predisposed to seeing meaning, and perhaps &amp;quot;intelligence&amp;quot;, everywhere. In this case the meaning is very convincing since it comes from other humans, diced and sliced, but is merely presenting ourselves to ourselves in an interactive way, using our style of discourse.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>guiambros</author><text>Last night I entered the page-long instructions for Advent of Code day 4, and it spewed out perfectly readable code and solved it on the first try [1]. And we&amp;#x27;re not talking about a common algorithm that has been solved many times before, but a convoluted story that is full of &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;elves cleaning up overlapping sections of the camp&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot; (!), and ChatGPT was still able to understand it, write the code to solve it, and even &lt;i&gt;explain how it works&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s nothing short of a phenomenal milestone.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;GuiAmbros&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1599282083838296064&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;GuiAmbros&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1599282083838296064&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Show HN: Whole Git repo was made with ChatGPT</title><url>https://github.com/vrescobar/chatGPT-python-elm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rightbyte</author><text>Ye I signed up and tried some queries. It was quite scary.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Write a function that sorts the elements of a c string backwards, in C.&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Add a flag to the sort function which makes it sort the string forward.&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Could you write a endian swap function for double argument in PIC assembler?&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Could you write a binary sort in PIC 8-bit assembler&amp;quot;
&amp;quot;Write a Javascript function that prints the day of the week together with some Chinese words of wisdom.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It had no problem doing any one those. I ran them all, except the assembler ones.&lt;p&gt;The question is how good it is to process larger chunks of code and makes changes to it.&lt;p&gt;People thinking about becoming programmers might need to rethink their plans if this one improves ...&lt;p&gt;EDIT:
Oh dear. I introduced bugs in its sort code and it found them and explained what they did.</text></item><item><author>jchw</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m sure this line of logic is very comforting, but frankly, this comfort disappears quickly when you actually &lt;i&gt;use&lt;/i&gt; ChatGPT. What you find is that you can interact with it in a quite natural way, and it is able to synthesize and iterate at a level that feels easily on par with a moderately skilled human software engineer. I know it&amp;#x27;s uncomfortable, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t even matter if the machine is &amp;quot;non-intelligent.&amp;quot; Nobody gives a damn. What matters is what you can do with it, and every iteration of GPT the goal posts keep moving further, but this time it&amp;#x27;s really difficult to deny: you really, really can describe a program at a high level and ChatGPT can implement it. You can point out an error and it can fix it. Hell, you can feed it compiler errors.&lt;p&gt;Is it literally as good as a human software engineer? No, but it&amp;#x27;s also better too. I doubt ChatGPT could debug as effectively as a veteran software engineer (... In fairness, most humans can&amp;#x27;t either.) It can debug pretty decently, but there&amp;#x27;s still work there. That said, the breadth of knowledge encoded in a language model is stunning. I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure you can&amp;#x27;t just regurgitate an implementation of the discrete cosine transform in Rust without at least pulling up Wikipedia, but ChatGPT can, because well. It doesn&amp;#x27;t have to pull it up.&lt;p&gt;I still don&amp;#x27;t think ChatGPT is ready to replace human programmers. It may be a long time before we have general enough intelligence to replace knowledge work meaningfully with AI. However, if you think it&amp;#x27;s not happening ever, because machines are not &amp;quot;intelligent&amp;quot; based on some set of goal posts, I&amp;#x27;ve got bad news: that&amp;#x27;s not part of the job listing.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s easy to laugh at MSN publishing articles written by GPT; that&amp;#x27;s just stupid. However, at some level you have to admit that the input to ChatGPT is almost as high level as directives from project managers, and the output is almost low level enough to simply input directly into source control. That leaves very little to the imagination for how this could quickly spiral out of control.</text></item><item><author>dkjaudyeqooe</author><text>I guess we can look forward to weeks of &amp;quot;Show HN: $X created by ChatGPT&amp;quot; but people should be cautioned not to read to much into these results. Always remember that almost all of what is being presented here is the work of humans, regurgitated by a very much non-intelligent machine, despite its name. It&amp;#x27;s basically:&lt;p&gt;Human creation -&amp;gt; ChatGPT -&amp;gt; Human query -&amp;gt; Human interpretation&lt;p&gt;The last bit, the interpretation, is particularly important. Just like we&amp;#x27;re predisposed to seeing faces everywhere, we&amp;#x27;re predisposed to seeing meaning, and perhaps &amp;quot;intelligence&amp;quot;, everywhere. In this case the meaning is very convincing since it comes from other humans, diced and sliced, but is merely presenting ourselves to ourselves in an interactive way, using our style of discourse.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>alexeldeib</author><text>I tried higher level problems: write an http server in rust using warp and postgres, with endpoint for get users and put user.&lt;p&gt;9 compile errors, some due to cargo.toml issues (it only generated main.rs). But mostly worked.&lt;p&gt;The post we’re discussing is also pretty impressive, a working lexer&amp;#x2F;parser</text></comment>