News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Can GPT-4 *Actually* Write Code? by WinstonSmith84 on Friday March 17, 2023 @12:44PM (#35199484)
If you tried GPT4, you probably understood it's not about feeding all the code in the world. GPT4 analyzes and "understands" your code and will answer based on this. Clearly, it will read the variable names and make deductions based on this. It will actually read the comments, the function names and make decisions based on this. And it knows the rules of the language. I mean, I'm writing this because this is what I've witnessed since the time I spent playing with it.

The problem I've seen is that, maybe like the author has been writing, it's making sh*t up. That's not untrue, sometimes I didn't give it all dependent classes and it tried to think sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly what those were (such as method signatures, instance members, etc.) I wish it would have asked me some details rather than trying to figure things out. The guys at OpenAI have still a lot to do, but the current status is very impressive

Re:Can GPT-4 *Actually* Write Code? by blibble on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:02PM (#35199803)
it is entirely about feeding it all the code in the world

it doesn't understand anything, it doesn't make deductions

it's a probability model, and I understand how it's implemented perfectly well, thank you

Re:Can GPT-4 *Actually* Write Code? by og_kalu on Friday March 17, 2023 @02:39PM (#35201092)
No you obviously don't lol
Re:Can GPT-4 *Actually* Write Code? by travisjungroth on Friday March 17, 2023 @06:36PM (#35203803)
Even view it as a simple probability model, you don’t need a million Python repos. The massive amount of English text + 1,000 repos + your codebase is very powerful. You can see this because you can make up a language, give it some examples and it’s surprisingly good.
Re:Can GPT-4 *Actually* Write Code? by zarzavat on Friday March 17, 2023 @10:18PM (#35205417)
Does a chess engine “understand” the position? If you define “understanding” as the ability to think like a human then Stockfish is obviously much worse at that. If you define understanding as the ability to choose the correct move, then Stockfish understands the position much better than any human.

The point being, you can choose to laden the word “understand” with the meaning of human-like thinking, in which case humans will always be superior by definition. Or you can choose a “many ways to Rome” definition of understanding that is purely focused on results.

Large language models understand language in their own way. Currently their results are inferior to humans’ but one day the results may be superior.