Yeah, for me it’s more that just “produces correct output.” I don’t expect to see 5 pages of sequential if-statements (which, ironically, is pretty close to LLM’s internal designs), but also no unnessesary nested loops. “Correct” means producing the right results, but also not having O(n²) (or worse) when it’s avoidable.
The thing that puts me off most, though, is how it usually expands code for clarified requirements in the worst possible way. Like, you start with simple specs and make consecutive clarifications, and the code gets worse. And if you ask it to refactor it to be cleaner, it’ll often refactor the Code to look better, but it’ll no longer produce the correct output.
Several times I’ve asked it for code in a language where I don’t know the libraries well, and it’ll give me code using functions that don’t exist. And when I point out they don’t exist, I get an apology and sometimes a different function call that also doesn’t exist.
It’s really wack how people are using this in their jobs.
Yeah, for me it’s more that just “produces correct output.” I don’t expect to see 5 pages of sequential if-statements (which, ironically, is pretty close to LLM’s internal designs), but also no unnessesary nested loops. “Correct” means producing the right results, but also not having O(n²) (or worse) when it’s avoidable.
The thing that puts me off most, though, is how it usually expands code for clarified requirements in the worst possible way. Like, you start with simple specs and make consecutive clarifications, and the code gets worse. And if you ask it to refactor it to be cleaner, it’ll often refactor the Code to look better, but it’ll no longer produce the correct output.
Several times I’ve asked it for code in a language where I don’t know the libraries well, and it’ll give me code using functions that don’t exist. And when I point out they don’t exist, I get an apology and sometimes a different function call that also doesn’t exist.
It’s really wack how people are using this in their jobs.