I used GPT-4 to build this tool https://image-to-jpeg.vercel.app using a few prompts the other day - my ChatGPT transcript for that is here: https://gist.github.com/simonw/66918b6cde1f87bf4fc883c677351...

Love how you didn’t care about styling this like at all, Lol. Btw, if you ask gpt to make it presentable by using bootstrap 5 for example it can style it for you

One mans "presentable" is another mans bloat. It looks perfectly fine to me, simple, useful and self-explanatory, doesn't need more flash than so.

Sure, but presentation and UX basics are not "bloat".

What "basic UX" principles are being violated here exactly? And how would adding Bootstrap solve those?

See my problem with virtually every single example is that we talk about "I can't describe in any other way than it is thinking", "such complex solutions" but in the end we get a 50 lines "app" that you'd see in a computer science 101 class

It's very nice, it's very impressive, it will help people, but it doesn't align with the "you're just about to lose your job" "Skynet comes in the next 6 months" &c.

If these basic samples are a bottleneck in your day to day life as a developer I'm worried about the state of the industry

This took me 3 minutes to build. Without ChatGPT it would have taken me 30-60 minutes, if not longer thanks to the research I would have needed to do into the various browser APIs.

If it had taken me longer than 3 minutes I wouldn't have bothered - it's not a tool I needed enough to put the work in.

That's the thing I find so interesting about this stuff: it's causing me to be much more ambitious in what I chose to build: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/27/ai-enhanced-developmen...

The concern is the velocity. GPT-4 can solve tasks today that it couldn't solve one months ago. And even one month ago, the things it could do made GPT-3.5 look like a silly toy.

Then there's the question of how much this can be scaled further simply by throwing more hardware at it to run larger models. We're not anywhere near the limit of that yet.

I'm assuming the bits that say

> // Rest of the code remains the same

Are exactly as generated by GPT-4, i.e. it knew it didn't need to repeat the bits that hadn't changed, and knew to leave a comment like this to indicate that to the user.

It gets confusing when something can fake a human so well.

Yes, it will do that routinely. For example, you can ask it to generate HTML/JS/SVG in a single file to render some animated scene, and then iterate on that by telling it what looks wrong or what behaviors you like to change - and it will answer by saying things like, "replace the contents of the <script> element with the following".