←back to thread

688 points dheerajvs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.27s | source
Show context
noisy_boy ◴[] No.44523098[source]
It is 80/20 again - it gets you 80% of the way in 20% of the time and then you spend 80% of the time to get the rest of the 20% done. And since it always feels like it is almost there, sunk-cost fallacy comes into play as well and you just don't want to give up.

I think an approach that I tried recently is to use it as a friction remover instead of a solution provider. I do the programming but use it to remove pebbles such as that small bit of syntax I forgot, basically to keep up the velocity. However, I don't look at the wholesale code it offers. I think keeping the active thinking cap on results in code I actually understand while avoiding skill atrophy.

replies(9): >>44523200 #>>44523227 #>>44523342 #>>44523381 #>>44523532 #>>44523832 #>>44525241 #>>44528585 #>>44532723 #
emodendroket ◴[] No.44523227[source]
I think it’s most useful when you basically need Stack Overflow on steroids: I basically know what I want to do but I’m not sure how to achieve it using this environment. It can also be helpful for debugging and rubber ducking generally.
replies(4): >>44523343 #>>44523436 #>>44523560 #>>44523787 #
GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.44523787[source]
> rubber ducking

i don't mean to pick on your usage of this specifically, but i think it's noteworthy that the colloquial definition of "rubber ducking" seems to have expanded to include "using a software tool to generate advice/confirm hunches". I always understood the term to mean a personal process of talking through a problem out loud in order to methodically, explicitly understand a theoretical plan/process and expose gaps.

based on a lot of articles/studies i've seen (admittedly haven't dug into them too deeply) it seems like the use of chatbots to perform this type of task actually has negative cognitive impacts on some groups of users - the opposite of the personal value i thought rubber-ducking was supposed to provide.

replies(3): >>44526810 #>>44526955 #>>44527095 #
1. emodendroket ◴[] No.44527095[source]
Well OK, sure. But I’m having a “conversation” with nobody still. I’m surprised how often it happens that the AI a gives me a totally wrong answer but a combination of formulating the question and something in the answer made me think of the right thing after all.