this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
95 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1401 readers
155 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Oh wow. The article says basically that but without the /s and then it gets even better. This is according to Mister AI Professor Ethan Mollick From The University Of Warthon and the link goes to a tweet (the highest form of academia) saying:

The problem with calling “prompt engineering” a form of programming is that it isn’t like what we call coding

In fact, coders are often bad at prompting because AI doesn’t do things consistently or work like code. The best prompters I know can’t code at all. They “teach” the AI.

Which is just great considering the next excuse in the text is:

this is due to insufficient reviews, either because the company has not implemented robust code quality and code-review practices, or because developers are scrutinising AI-written code less than they would scrutinise their own code

So who the fuck even reviews the prompt engineers’ code sludge, Mister AI Professor Of Twitter?

Whole text is such a sad cope.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Programmers hate programming and love code reviewing, right? Right?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Soon they will try to fix this problem by having 2 forms of LLM do team coding. The surprised Pikachu faces will be something

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

Looking forward to the LLM vs LLM PRs with hundreds of back and forth commit-request changes-commit cycles. Most of it just flipping a field between final and not final.

load more comments (3 replies)