Working with models like GPT-4 is frustrating from a traditional software engineering perspective because these systems are inherently unreliable and non-deterministic, which differs from most software tools that we use.
That doesn't mean they can't be incredibly useful - but it does mean you have to approach them in a bit of a different way, and design software around them that takes their unreliability into account.
Unreliable? Non-deterministic? Hidden variables? Undocumented behaviour? C'mon fellow programmers who got their start in the Win-95 era! It's our time to shine!
ChatGPT is probably in the top 5 value/money subscriptions I have ever had (and that includes utilities).
The relatively low price point certainly plays a role here, but it's certainly not a mainly recreational thing for me. These thing's are kinda hard to measure but roughly most + is engagement with hard stuff goes up, and rate of learning goes up, by a lot.
> You might be surprised to learn that I actually think LLMs have the potential to be not only fun but genuinely useful. “Show me some bullshit that would be typical in this context” can be a genuinely helpful question to have answered, in code and in natural language — for brainstorming, for seeing common conventions in an unfamiliar context, for having something crappy to react to.
== End of toot.
The price you pay for this bullshit in energy when the sea temperature is literally off the charts and we do not know why makes it not worth it in my opinion.
1. A recitation of terrible problems 2. A declaration of general satisfaction.
Clearly and obviously, ChatGPT is an unreliable toy. The author seems pleased with it. As an engineer, I find that unacceptable.