Hacker News Reader

Comment by qarl | Hacker News Reader

Yes.

Last week I wanted to interface with a bluetooth device in Python on a Mac.

I asked ChatGPT for a solution - it told me about a Python-ObjectiveC bridge to the MacOS Bluetooth API. It coded a stub to search for the device, connect to it, query for services, and write data to a specific service.

I've never used bluetooth before. I have minimal experience with Python. With ChatGPT this entire prototype took about 10 minutes to implement.

View on HN

That’s one example. So the answer isn’t yes. Come back when it’s stated literally making up names of functions and see how frustrated it gets you. THEN and only then can you be classed as a software engineer.

Ok now ask ChatGPT to produce a git patch file for your production repo and see how far that gets you. Not far.

HEH. Your point is that ChatGPT is useless because it doesn't (yet) do everything?

FYI - it can't turn lead to gold either.

Nope. My point is that production apps at organizations are a lot more complicated than a toy app built from scratch by ChatGPT. Fundamentally, do you think ChatGPT will ever be able to produce accurate patch files? Thing is it doesn’t count newline characters or anything to specify the diff, it’s statistical inference and fails at this task.

Also, no one actually knows that LLMs with transformers will continue to scale. Every AI ceo says yes but that can’t be said without bias.

I can see you have very strong feelings about this.

Yes, I believe that AI will eventually be able to create accurate patch files.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You take care now.

Ha I have strong opinions from experience, not feelings.

I think so too but the OP is asking about chatGPT and relatively near term tech (given the context of his question).

Your naivety about software engineering is not uncommon but it is misinformed.

LOL!

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You take care now.

You too! You bring strong arguments btw ;)

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You take care now.

Cut it out. If you don't want to keep engaging, just bow out. Don't flashily and ostentatiously say weird stuff like this. Just don't reply if you don't have anything substantive to contribute.

Or maybe I guess you are realizing you are in beyond your depth and want to save face.

Friend, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You take care now.

Wrong. You think you're being clever but you're just being obnoxious. So, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Good. I'm glad we could reach agreement.

I will not respond to your further.

I don't believe you. Your track record is of repeatedly responding to say you won't respond any more, over and over. It is bizarre, and it is conduct that has no place here. At this point I think I'm just amused and curious to see when you'll stop. I fear you might be thinking similarly.

Maybe he is a chatbot!

Your sense that an LLM being able to write a simple python script is good enough to replace engineers makes you reek of being a junior engineer. How do you justify such extrapolation?

Your original comment provides zero baseline for how long the bluetooth script would have taken to write without chatGPT, with or without experience.

> Your sense that an LLM being able to write a simple python script is good enough to replace engineers

Friend, I never said anything of the sort. You are literally arguing with voices in your own head.

> makes you reek of being a junior engineer.

I have almost 40 years of experience as a software engineer on some of the most prestigious projects of their time. Trust me, you do NOT want a dick measuring contest.

Please stop - you’re making an ass of yourself. I will not respond to you further.

Well finally you're trying to use some logic and critical thinking. Thank God.

For real you're as bad as me because you also reply and can't stop.

I'm not hearing voices, I'm talking about the context of the OPs question.

Prestigious projects don't mean you don't have to actually argue with logic now

> I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. You take care now.

Stop spamming HN saying this over and over. It doesn't make you look clever or polite, as you think. If you have substantive comments, make them. Obstentatiously posting over and over that you intend to stop posting is way too lowbrow for HN.

I disagree, friend. You take care now.

Clearly he is so special to our universe, and has such a solid reputation, that arguing with words and logic is beneath him. Duh.

No, friend. I just don't like to argue with crazy people. It's a waste of time.

It's like the crazy guy on the street corner screaming about his conspiracy theories. No one talks to him.

Take a hint.

Well if the implication here is that me and everyone else commenting in the subthread is crazy, i suppose that means you do like to argue but just not with logic.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Goodbye now.

I changed my mind, I agree with you. I refuse to disagree. I'n not sure what we're agreeing about anymore, but whatever. See you next time you fail to resist the temptation to continue this increasingly silly thread

Thank you for eloquently capturing why qarl's conduct was pissing me off.

It’s also about risk. How fragile is your code base? You have no idea of its weaknesses without thinking through the implementation details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com