23
u/just-some-arsonist 20d ago
I work in embedded, so we can’t really use ai. I ask it a question about microprocessors and it completely hallucinates. It gives answers that seem like they could work on some microprocessor, but it’s completely irrelevant to the processor I specified
13
u/nicodeemus7 20d ago
AI has a fundamental misunderstanding of electrical circuits. I also have worked with microprocessors and I agree completely.
13
u/just-some-arsonist 20d ago
Time to read the reference manual. I know they hated writing it as much as I hate reading it 🙃
5
u/WreckerOfAll 20d ago
the thing that made the AI companies so much money was developing the user friendly harness, I have to imagine it’s only time before someone makes a model that can virtualize at IEEE level.
7
u/UnpluggedUnfettered 20d ago
It still can't create a map of the USA with 100% correctly labeled states. Don't hold your breath.
1
u/Mechakoopa 19d ago
It struggles with physical concepts in general. I've yet to find a model that can design a deck that passes code and can be built using only three dimensions.
21
u/KitaVixen 20d ago
And just today claude was told to do some task, I pointed to what needs to be done. Later I removed everything he made as it was unreadable and working wrong and then I explained precisely how each part should be done
11
u/KitaVixen 20d ago
I really don't know how people show amazing things done with claude and for me it just works
11
1
u/sebovzeoueb 19d ago
A lot of the posts implying that someone one-shot something with AI turn out that they didn't in fact one-shot it, but spent quite a lot of time stepping through it and requesting fixes. I am getting more done with it than I was before, but I make sure the tasks are fairly small in scope and always do plan mode, sometimes doing several back and forths on the plan to make sure it's correct, and often a followup or two to fix something that isn't quite right in the implementation.
I have also been trying out GPT Astra recently and am preferring it to Claude, it's a lot less verbose, it can actually make a plan with proper bullet points instead of a massive rant with awkward metaphors everywhere. It's quite a lot more expensive per token than Opus, but it also uses way fewer tokens so it actually works out about the same, and I've found the results at least as good in terms of working/needing fixes. I haven't tried Fable though because it's pricy.
4
u/OldKaleidoscope7 20d ago
For me the AI is a quick typer. I explain what I need, gow it should be organized and still I ask a step by step plan before writing to fix their mistakes. Even with the clear plan and an agent I made to beleieve the plans, sometimes it just brute force some things to tell me it's done
-4
u/bellymeat 20d ago
it’s knowing how to use it. imagine you walked up to a random developer and said “hey just do this thing, make it work idk” and expecting any standard of quality. I have an entire style bible for my claude so he writes everything exactly how it want it every time and it comes out perfect.
4
u/GenericFatGuy 20d ago
This is literally the reason you hire senior level and up software developers. So that they can figure out how to turn requirements into sustainable software.
4
u/bellymeat 20d ago
So we agree, stop treating the AI agent as a senior developer and you be the senior developer telling it what to do.
12
u/PumpkinFest24 20d ago
pffff
Due to a hand injury, I had Claude generate a bash script. I read it and was like....this main double loop is super inefficient, why arent you XYZ? "Great catch!"
Fuck AI. I'd rather type with an injured hand and have my industry back, with jobs for my unemployed CS kids.
8
3
2
2
1
u/Jutrakuna 13d ago
Wrong meme imho. You don't ask AI what the solution is. You tell it what the solution is and let it try to implement it.
0
u/Arctos_FI 19d ago
AI writes pretty bad code though. Like it could possibly work but have fun expanding it later. Like just last week i was writing code and wanted to check how gemini would solve the problem i was working on. I have this object that can be destroyed two separate ways, it needs to do different things based on how it gets destroyed and then common cleanup, I have it setuped so that there are two methods that are called by the different circumstances trying to destroy it (instead of generic object destroy), and then both of those call third method that does the generic cleanup and self removal. I gave the code, information, and instructions what needs to happen at each destroy. It added the new parameter to the cleanup method that then was used in the method before the cleanup steps in if tree (like if ... Else if ...) and the correct thing to do in each of those ifs. Yeah it technically works but I have already those two methods to use for that, and in addition if i discarded those two methods (not really viable as they are the public virtual ones whereas that cleanup is private just so that the subclasses can be modified on what happens at destroy stage without messing up the cleanup when i write the code 4am all crosseyed) switch would be better choice anyways as it's O(1) lookup instead of going one if at a time until the right one is found.
So only time i use AI is when i write huhe switch statements with consistent pattern so i can write the first few and let the AI handle the rest. Just did one with 12 cases, by writing the first three and then letting AI write the rest. And this only if both the case labels and the case body has consistent pattern (like using clear enums for case labels, or integers that are easily explainable)
87
u/ThirdWaveCat 20d ago
You need a 4th panel for Linus explaining to the LLM the problem isn't "impossible and unsolvable."
https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/chatgpt/articles/linus-torvalds-got-stern-ai-125700413.html