• rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    As I use copilot to write software, I have a hard time seeing how it’ll get better than it already is. The fundamental problem of all machine learning is that the training data has to be good enough to solve the problem. So the problems I run into make sense, like:

    1. Copilot can’t read my mind and figure out what I’m trying to do.
    2. I’m working on an uncommon problem where the typical solutions don’t work
    3. Copilot is unable to tell when it doesn’t “know” the answer, because of course it’s just simulating communication and doesn’t really know anything.

    2 and 3 could be alleviated, but probably not solved completely with more and better data or engineering changes - but obviously AI developers started by training the models on the most useful data and strategies that they think work best. 1 seems fundamentally unsolvable.

    I think there could be some more advances in finding more and better use cases, but I’m a pessimist when it comes to any serious advances in the underlying technology.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      So you use other people’s open source code without crediting the authors or respecting their license conditions? Good for you, parasite.

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Very frequently, yes. As well as closed source code and intellectual property of all kinds. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

    • ggppjj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Not copilot, but I run into a fourth problem:
      4. The LLM gets hung up on insisting that a newer feature of the language I’m using is wrong and keeps focusing on “fixing” it, even though it has access to the newest correct specifications where the feature is explicitly defined and explained.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Oh god yes, ran into this asking for a shell.nix file with a handful of tricky dependencies. It kept trying to do this insanely complicated temporary pull and build from git instead of just a 6 line file asking for the right packages.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 hours ago

          “This code is giving me a return value of X instead of Y”

          “Ah the reason you’re having trouble is because you initialized this list with brackets instead of new().”

          “How would a syntax error give me an incorrect return”

          “You’re right, thanks for correcting me!”

          “Ok so like… The problem though.”