Guillaume Cabanac Last week, an environmental journal published a paper on the use of renewable energy in cleaning up contaminated land. To read it, you would have to pay 40 euros. But you still wo…
  • boredazfcuk@mastodon.social
    1·
    9 months ago

    @FaceDeer @floofloof @henfredemars @PoisonedPrisonPanda @sab @Vilian the 500 char limit made me pick the first failure that spring to mind. Maybe you forget, but AI wasn’t trained on “good” data. It was trained “all” data and large amounts of that is plain wrong. People with problems pasting blocks of code and responses correcting a single line. ChatGPT isn’t smart enough to merge those into a single block of working code.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      1·
      9 months ago

      You have to tell ChatGPT that you want good code, then.

      I’m actually serious. If you just ask for something generic, it’ll assume you want something generic. If you ask it for something that’s “high efficiency, well commented and maintainable” then it’s going to know you wanted that and give you something more along those lines. Just like if you asked it for something “that looks crappy and sloppy, like an amateur wrote it.”

      Very often when people complain about ChatGPT’s “style” or say they can immediately spot something that “sounds like” ChatGPT it’s because they’re not giving it good directions. It can’t read your mind. Yet.

      • boredazfcuk@mastodon.social
        1·
        9 months ago

        @FaceDeer @floofloof @henfredemars @PoisonedPrisonPanda @sab @Vilian nope. I ask for highly precise stuff. When I say, “I’m no coder,” it’s coz I use interpreters and don’t compile “real” code, plus it only accounts for 10% of my day job. ChatGPT maybe useful for Hello World, Towers of Babel or other stuff it scraped from udemy, but when you ask it to assist in automating complex production systems, it really falls down.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          1·
          9 months ago

          Maybe ChatGPT just hates you personally, then.

          You’re saying “it can’t work for anyone because it doesn’t work for me!” And I’m saying “well, it worked for me, so maybe you’re using it wrong.”

          You can’t insist it’s not working for me because it did. I’m not disputing that it didn’t work for you, all I can suggest is reading up a bit on prompt engineering to see if you can find out what you’re doing differently.