pull down to refresh

111 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 14 Apr \ on: Dijkstra Archive: On the foolishness of "natural language programming" devs
Therefore, although changing to communication between machine and man conducted in the latter's native tongue would greatly increase the machine's burden, we have to challenge the assumption that this would simplify man's life.
An assumption worth challenging... but ultimately like he says, a worthy task. An electronic compute cycle is just so much cheaper than a biological one, it makes sense to offload more work to the machine and save the biological compute resources for the tasks that only it can accomplish.
This is part of my frustration with chat bots currently. "You just have to provide more of the nondeterministic, completely unspecified language combinations to get it to write the correct code for you." I suspect it'll rival giving a human programmer verbal instructions eventually, but even that isn't painless - often providing and presuming a bunch of context.
An interesting thing here is that the bosses and CEOs probably don't read or understand the code their engineers make. They just have to trust that their engineers are doing it right and using the right tests. As long as edge cases don't show up in production, they're probably happy.
Is that what we'll do with AI in the future? Just trust that it's doing things right and not realize the code has errors until the edge cases show up in prod?
write
preview