God help us if people start trying to use an overconfident chatbot to replace documentation :(.
One example is not a guarantee, but the experience made my day, and probably my week. Which is why the pop_back() thing made me worry :)
“Boom that was it” _if_ you blindly trust ChatGPT to generate correct code. If you don’t (and IMO you shouldn’t), “it worked for me today” isn’t sufficient to decide whether you can trust it.
You should go to the documentation of that package, judge whether ChatGPT used it correctly (and yes, that involves looking up the idiosyncrasies of function calls), judge whether you trust that package, evaluate its license, etc.
When a prompt is “analytic” in nature, that is contains the facts required for the output, like “convert this following box score into an entertaining account of the baseball game it describes”, it works rather well.
When the prompt is “synthetic” in nature, when it doesn’t have the facts in the prompt, like “based on that same box score, provide some direct quotes from the broadcasters”, it does not reliably provide factual responses.
* when
A chat bot looks like a great help to parse through huge volumes of documentation.
If the chatbot built around the docs outputs garbage, that is a telltale sign that the documentation was garbage to start with.
Just because people started developing clever chatbots that misfire, let's not fool ourselves into believing documentation was a solved problem and all docs were squeaky clean.
>If the container is not empty, the function never throws exceptions (no-throw guarantee). Otherwise, it causes undefined behavior.
ChatGPT failed at basic regurgitation.
How about this:
If the container is empty the function causes undefined behaviour. Otherwise it never throws exceptions (no-throw guarantee).
We avoided having to hold two negatives, and we also put the thing you need to care about up front where it's more likely to be noticed.
That’s not how the chat bot works. This particular chat bot can be trained on a bunch of documents and still tell you something that contradicts the facts that are clear to a human in one of the said documents.
It’s a known phenomenon called “hallucination” and this actually gives the chat bot, to some extent, it’s ability to imitate creativity (to put it simply).
edit: typo