←back to thread

152 points GavinAnderegg | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
nickjj ◴[] No.44457178[source]
Serious question, how do you justify paying for any of this without feeling like it's a waste?

I occasionally use ChatGPT (free version without logging in) and the amount of times it's really wrong is very high. Often times it takes a lot of prompting and feeding it information from third party sources for it to realize it has incorrect information and then it corrects itself.

All of these prompts would be using money on a paid plan right?

I also used Cursor (free trial on their paid plan) for a bit and I didn't find much of a difference. I would say whatever back-end it was using was possibly worse. The code it wrote was busted and over engineered.

I want to like AI and in some cases it helps gain insight on something but I feel like literally 90% of my time is it prodiving me information that straight up doesn't work and eventually it might work but to get there is a lot of time and effort.

replies(7): >>44457220 #>>44457223 #>>44457236 #>>44457331 #>>44457367 #>>44457386 #>>44458671 #
vineyardmike ◴[] No.44457331[source]
> Serious question, how do you justify paying for any of this without feeling like it's a waste?

I would invert the question, how can you think it's a waste (for OP) if they're willing to spend $1000/mo on it? This isn't some emotional or fashionable thing, they're tools, so you'd have to assume they derive $1000 of value.

> free version... the amount of times it's really wrong is very high... it takes a lot of prompting and feeding it information from third party

Respectfully, you're using it wrong, and you get what you paid for. The free versions are obviously inferior, because obviously they paywall the better stuff. If OP is spending $50/day, why would the company give you the same version for free?

The original article mentions Cursor. With (paid) cursor, the tool automatically grabs all the information on behalf of the user. It will grab your code, including grepping to find the right files, and it will grab info from the internet (eg up to date libraries, etc), and feed that into the model which can provide targeted diffs to update just select parts of a file.

Additionally, the tools will automatically run compiler/linter/unit tests to validate their work, and iterate and fix their mistakes until everything works. This write -> compile -> unit test -> lint loop is exactly what a human will do.

replies(3): >>44457586 #>>44458202 #>>44458256 #
1. nickjj ◴[] No.44458256[source]
> Respectfully, you're using it wrong, and you get what you paid for.

I used the paid (free trial) version of Cursor to look at Go code. I used the free version of ChatGPT for topics like Rails, Flask, Python, Ansible and various networking things. These are all popular techs. I wouldn't describe either platform as "good" if we're measuring good by going from an idea to a fully working solution with reasonable code.

Cursor did a poor job. The code it provided was mega over engineered to the point where most of the code had to be thrown away because it missed the big picture. This was after a lot of very specific prompting and iterations. The code it provided also straight up didn't work without a lot of manual intervention.

It also started to modify app code to get tests to pass when in reality the test code was the thing that was broken.

Also it kept forgetting things from 10 minutes ago and repeating the same mistakes. For example when 3 of its solutions didn't work, it started to go back and suggest using the first solution that was confirmed to not work (and it even output text explaining why it didn't work just before).

I feel really bad for anyone trusting AI to write code when you don't already have a lot of experience so you can keep it in check.

So far at best I barely find it helpful for learning the basics of something new or picking out some obscure syntax of a tool you don't well after giving it a link to the tool's docs and source code.

replies(1): >>44458680 #
2. BeetleB ◴[] No.44458680[source]
> I feel really bad for anyone trusting AI to write code when you don't already have a lot of experience so you can keep it in check.

You definitely should be skilled in your domain to use it effectively.