this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
751 points (94.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
32000 readers
1744 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I think co-pilot works better because it has the context of the whole project for reference when suggesting auto completion. I've gotten a lot of unusable junk from it too though
It can go from great to absolute junk.
But sometimes I need some weird terminal command and it’s weirdly good at it.
Also I get a buddy that can put log messages like “AAAAAAAA” all over the place so at least I don’t go crazy on my own
Co-pilot isn't using the same model. They're using a model that's been trained on a LOT of open-source code.
Alot of "open" source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
is the model open source?
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.
Maybe same model but differnt data
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.
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.
I go the other way with it. Give me something broken but close and I'll use the documentation to fix it.