Technology

59427 readers

3085 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

775

ChatGPT Answers Programming Questions Incorrectly 52% of the Time: Study (gizmodo.com)

submitted 5 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The research from Purdue University, first spotted by news outlet Futurism, was presented earlier this month at the Computer-Human Interaction Conference in Hawaii and looked at 517 programming questions on Stack Overflow that were then fed to ChatGPT.

“Our analysis shows that 52% of ChatGPT answers contain incorrect information and 77% are verbose,” the new study explained. “Nonetheless, our user study participants still preferred ChatGPT answers 35% of the time due to their comprehensiveness and well-articulated language style.”

Disturbingly, programmers in the study didn’t always catch the mistakes being produced by the AI chatbot.

“However, they also overlooked the misinformation in the ChatGPT answers 39% of the time,” according to the study. “This implies the need to counter misinformation in ChatGPT answers to programming questions and raise awareness of the risks associated with seemingly correct answers.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (41 children)

So this issue for me is this:

If these technologies still require large amounts of human intervention to make them usable then why are we expending so much energy on solutions that still require human intervention to make them usable?

Why not skip the burning the planet to a crisp for half-formed technology that can't give consistent results and instead just pay people a living fucking wage to do the job in the first place?

Seriously, one of the biggest jokes in computer science is that debugging other people's code gives you worse headaches than migraines.

So now we're supposed to dump insane amounts of money and energy (as in burning fossil fuels and needing so much energy they're pushing for a nuclear resurgence) into a tool that results in... having to debug other people's code?

They've literally turned all of programming into the worst aspect of programming for barely any fucking improvement over just letting humans do it.

Why do we think it's important to burn the planet to a crisp in pursuit of this when humans can already fucking make art and code? Especially when we still need humans to fix the fucking AIs work to make it functionally usable. That's still a lot of fucking work expected of humans for a "tool" that's demanding more energy sources than currently exists.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Counter arguments

technology develops exponentially, while humans are … static
even now single line of code LLM generates faster and cheaper
the replacement is not programmer->LLM but programmer -> (programmer +LLM). LLM is just a tool.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 5 months ago

technology develops exponentially, while humans are … static

I have yet to see a self-improving technology that does not require adaptive human intelligence as an input.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

So refreshing when the voice of reason pops up in here. Thankyou!

load more comments (38 replies)