this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
693 points (93.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

32410 readers
1 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 51 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Maybe it's because I'm only using it as plan B or C (after the documentation has already failed me), but I have never gotten any usable code out of chatGPT.

And yet co-pilot is able to finish my code perfectly after I type the first few characters... even though they're the same model.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago

Maybe same model but differnt data

[–] dan@upvote.au 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Co-pilot isn't using the same model. They're using a model that's been trained on a LOT of open-source code.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago

Alot of "open" source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] downdaemon@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 years ago

Not that I'm aware of. Even if the input is public data, the actual training scripts and resulting model tend to be closed-source. Meta's one of the only major companies I know of to release their models under a somewhat-open-source license.

[–] garyyo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

ChatGPT is amazing for describing what you want, getting a reasonable output, and then rewriting nearly the whole thing to fit your needs. It's a faster (shittier) stack overflow.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

I normally have it output toy examples of the syntax I don't want to bother learning and then remix that into what I need. IMO it's better than stackoverflow because stackoverflow code is more likely to be not really what you were searching for or not actually run because the author didn't bother testing it and there's a typo or something.

[–] legion02@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I go the other way with it. Give me something broken but close and I'll use the documentation to fix it.