this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
750 points (93.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

32426 readers
735 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Maybe it's because I'm only using it as plan B or C (after the documentation has already failed me), but I have never gotten any usable code out of chatGPT.

And yet co-pilot is able to finish my code perfectly after I type the first few characters... even though they're the same model.

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think co-pilot works better because it has the context of the whole project for reference when suggesting auto completion. I've gotten a lot of unusable junk from it too though

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It can go from great to absolute junk.

But sometimes I need some weird terminal command and it’s weirdly good at it.

Also I get a buddy that can put log messages like “AAAAAAAA” all over the place so at least I don’t go crazy on my own

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

Maybe same model but differnt data

[–] dan@upvote.au 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Co-pilot isn't using the same model. They're using a model that's been trained on a LOT of open-source code.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

Alot of "open" source code ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] garyyo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ChatGPT is amazing for describing what you want, getting a reasonable output, and then rewriting nearly the whole thing to fit your needs. It's a faster (shittier) stack overflow.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

I normally have it output toy examples of the syntax I don't want to bother learning and then remix that into what I need. IMO it's better than stackoverflow because stackoverflow code is more likely to be not really what you were searching for or not actually run because the author didn't bother testing it and there's a typo or something.

[–] legion02@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I go the other way with it. Give me something broken but close and I'll use the documentation to fix it.