Post #3062619
2025-10-07 02:02 UTC
@fcalva@cyberplace.social @nicolaromano@qoto.org @Kiloku@burnthis.town @eb@social.coop The frightening thing is that they are generating functional software at this point. Idk how much handholding they need in the present day (because I actually enjoy what I do and I have zero interest in crowdfunding the Torment Nexus) but it started polluting the tech-adjacent maker side of YouTube almost immediately so I've watched multiple people who clearly aren't experienced programmers, but are persistent enough to go back and forth with an earlier, jankier version of ChatGPT to eventually end up with a functional program, and I'm lead to believe that some of the more code-focused models/platofrms have gotten a lot less hand-holdy.
I'm just waiting to see how much more data breach coverage costs next time I renew my business insurance, lmao.
Replies (2)
-
@fcalva@cyberplace.social 2025-10-07 04:58
@gordoooo_z@polymaths.social @nicolaromano@qoto.org @Kiloku@burnthis.town @eb@social.coop it's about as good as copy pasting from random githubs and stack overflow posts. You only have a machine to automate that more or less. By design it can only plagarise the most prevalent code it it's dataset, and a bigger and "smarter" model only increases the quality of that retreiving.
-
@sabik@rants.au 2025-10-07 07:20
@gordoooo_z@polymaths.social @fcalva@cyberplace.social @Kiloku@burnthis.town @eb@social.coop Part of the danger is that writing syntactically correct programs is something that can be bolted onto the LLM output side, which makes it look much more competent than it actually is