I asked it to create a struct representing a table in Go, without telling it the types and it inferred those just from the names, including having lat/long as floats. Then I asked it to write a fiber app using that struct with a single endpoint for adding new entries. Did so perfectly. Asked it to add single entry and multi entry retrieval and done so from context, no bugs
Not surprising, or? It can do all these things for which plentiful examples exist out there quite perfectly, but everything else that requires true more complex understanding of things, transfer of knowledge, or where only little documentation and less examples exist... not really.
Yeah I have been trying to use it to design neural nets, but it always gets the Tensor shapes wrong and it uses the incorrect layers and parameters.
I tried being brief thinking that it has a short “working memory” but that leads to definition ambiguity.
I tried being exhaustive with explanations about things like the data range, input shapes and reasons for parameters, and with enough explanation it will eventually come to the right conclusions - but it’s far more effort to exhaustively explain what I need then to just write the code - and even worse, during the explanation phases it gives me “working” code (I.E. code that executes) but is functionally wrong! So if I wasn’t so experienced I would likely have accepted one of these incorrect implementations and then been not sure why it doesn’t work…
When I say “wrong” I don’t really mean things like “this hyperparameter is non-optimal” - I mean things like “This network topology doesn’t make sense, and the whole thing is wired together wrong”
I think overall it’s a great tool though - one of my favourite hobbies now is to sit down before bed and spend an hour chatting with it on random subjects, asking it deep Domain questions on ancillary interests of mine, but I am cautious about what it produces knowing it gets code so wrong
I look forward to future versions that are improved!
> but it’s far more effort to exhaustively explain what I need then to just write the code
Exactly. It's almost as if explicitly laying out the requirements is itself a form of programming. We might see something more akin to a natural language in the future, but requirements are programming, in a very real sense.
I wouldn't have thought it could do even this, I am truly amazed that it was able to infer type from name and then keep in context everything it did. I decided to use postgres instead of mysql, asked it to rewrite it with that in mind and it did so perfectly. To me that is amazing.
