Just because AI and ChatGPT is not perfect does not make it a waste of time.

That's taking what I wrote very much out of context. I did not call them a waste of time, I called proofreading code written by ChatGPT (and our local trolls) a waste of time. Both the article and my other node that I linked to name some useful uses of AI and ChatGPT - did you read either? Or did you use ChatGPT to summarize them, which might explain the misunderstanding? ;-P

Edit: Added last sentence ;-)

> written by ChatGPT (and our local trolls)

FWIW: I suspicioned many times that some of our local trolls are actually AI using us as training ground.

I think that doesn't sound too weird anymore.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

That's taking what I wrote very much out of context

Yes - I see that...

I was suffering from that very human problem of reading and replying when it was late; I was tired and thinking mostly of getting away from the screen and into bed. Maybe the lack of fatigue is one area where AI will excel despite the lack of creativity and ingenuity.

Maybe the lack of fatigue is one area where AI will excel

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

---

🦛

I was suffering from that very human problem of reading and replying when it was late; I was tired and thinking mostly of getting away from the screen and into bed. Maybe the lack of fatigue is one area where AI will excel despite the lack of creativity and ingenuity.

That depends a lot on the selection of the training data. If 99% of the distance driven is from New York taxi drivers, your self-driving car will be very good at honking the horn the millisecond the lights turn green. But it will be extremely confused by cattle on the road the first time it drives in a rural area.

The same goes for an AI system that reads and write comments on forums. My guess is that it will be superb at trolling people and posting memes but will absolutely refuse to read the second paragraph of any post, ever.

PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP

If haukex is thinking what I'm thinking, a different way to phrase it is that it is often more effort to find bugs in code that looks pretty good than to write it from scratch. This is the flip-side of the "Not-Invented-Here Syndrome". Sometimes I re-invent things just because I don't want to deal with someone else's hidden assumptions and design limitations that I won't realize until I'm way too committed to building on top of someone else's system. And, that's for programmers who know what they're doing. I looked at this code and didn't catch either of the bugs even after 3 reads, but I wouldn't have made either mistake if I wrote it myself. If I used this code, it would be a time bomb waiting to go off and debugging it would use up more time than it would take to write that boilerplate by hand.

Meanwhile I've found ChatGPT to be an amazing search engine. I can ask an abstract question that would be hard to google and it will pop out example code or paths or config files, and then I use the keywords in those examples to go look up the actual documentation. It's also generally faster and more to the point than google because I don't have to dig through spam results and run into a bunch of articles targeted at the wrong experience level that spend 50 pages explaining things I already know, or get distracted reading some flame war on a mailing list from 5 years ago.

Meanwhile I've found ChatGPT to be an amazing search engine. I can ask an abstract question that would be hard to google

Agreed - that's one of the best uses I have found for ChatGPT, Bard and other AI services...

G'day Bod,

I use module-starter. I use the Module::Starter::PBP plugin; I like the templating features and have written my own custom ones; I'm less interested in the "Perl Best Practices" features and have removed a fair bit of that.

With this, I can create skeleton modules including POD, a number of standard test files, and other associated files. Just like you, I need to add the program code and POD details. My results are consistent every time, which you won't get with ChatGPT. Furthermore, it does a lot more work than ChatGPT and, I'm reasonably certain, with less effort and in a shorter time. Consider the following which only took about a minute.

ken@titan ~/tmp/pm_11151331_module_starter
$ module-starter --module=Nod::To::Bod
Added to MANIFEST: Changes
Added to MANIFEST: lib/Nod/To/Bod.pm
... multiple similar lines for other files created ...
Created starter directories and files

ken@titan ~/tmp/pm_11151331_module_starter
$ cd Nod-To-Bod/

ken@titan ~/tmp/pm_11151331_module_starter/Nod-To-Bod
$ perldoc lib/Nod/To/Bod.pm
... displays a couple of screenfuls with TODOs where details need to b
+e added ...

ken@titan ~/tmp/pm_11151331_module_starter/Nod-To-Bod
$ perl Makefile.PL; make; make test
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Generating a Unix-style Makefile
Writing Makefile for Nod::To::Bod
Writing MYMETA.yml and MYMETA.json
cp lib/Nod/To/Bod.pm blib/lib/Nod/To/Bod.pm
Manifying 1 pod document
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 "/home/ken/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.36.0/bin/perl
+.exe" "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-MTest::Harness" "-e" "undef *Test::
+Harness::Switches; test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/00-load.t ............. 1/1 # Testing Nod::To::Bod 0.001
t/00-load.t ............. ok
t/99-00_pod.t ........... ok
t/99-01_pod_coverage.t .. ok
t/99-02_manifest.t ...... ok
All tests successful.
Files=4, Tests=5,  1 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr  0.03 sys +  0.29 cusr 
+ 0.50 csys =  0.84 CPU)
Result: PASS
[download]

And, of course, I have the added benefit that none of this code ever hallucinates. :-)