Re:ChatGPT4 writes Stan code so I don’t have to
by jpollock on Sunday April 23, 2023 @11:58PM
(#35683507)
Sorry, my comment wasn't LLMs in general, it was this specific pair of LLMs at this specific time.
I've been trying the same prompt since ChatGPT was released, and I keep revisiting it.
They are getting better at writing code, Bard's addition of sourcing information is very important to me.
I do this so I can see if it will help _me_ in what I'm trying to do, and where the failure modes are. Their failure modes are very sneaky and very dangerous for the kind of programming I do.
I would use them to maybe give me a first pass at some code in a language I have zero familiarity with, and only to solve general problems.
I'm thinking throw-away, one-off code where the operational range is known up front and fully middle of the road. I'm thinking reports.
I might try to get it to write something useful in R, I have no knowledge of that.
I can see them as really handy refactoring tools. They take instruction pretty well. They just need to be stable in the code they produce - they keep reintroducing bugs you've instructed them to fix. Changing to an edit stream against code instead of re-generating the code might be a fix?
I've been trying the same prompt since ChatGPT was released, and I keep revisiting it.
They are getting better at writing code, Bard's addition of sourcing information is very important to me.
I do this so I can see if it will help _me_ in what I'm trying to do, and where the failure modes are. Their failure modes are very sneaky and very dangerous for the kind of programming I do.
I would use them to maybe give me a first pass at some code in a language I have zero familiarity with, and only to solve general problems.
I'm thinking throw-away, one-off code where the operational range is known up front and fully middle of the road. I'm thinking reports.
I might try to get it to write something useful in R, I have no knowledge of that.
I can see them as really handy refactoring tools. They take instruction pretty well. They just need to be stable in the code they produce - they keep reintroducing bugs you've instructed them to fix. Changing to an edit stream against code instead of re-generating the code might be a fix?