Non-programmers using an AI service to write a script will think the output is brilliant because they’re not programmers. Their assessment doesn’t make the code good.
No doubt AI code will rarely be “good” and likely will rarely pass a code review by a professional coder.
I am saying that’s not the point. If it helps a “non-professional programmer” who happens to be a professional in some other field - and that lets him create personal scripts to extend the power of his desktop - then that can be immensely helpful.
Communicating with whom? ChatGPT isn’t communicating. It’s merely a predictive text engine.
If ChatGPT is “merely a predictive text engine” then the human brain is merely a bunch of cells. The truth is that nobody can truly explain how either design makes the jump to language.
Don’t get me wrong- I do NOT believe AI is sentient. I recognize it has major faults at present. I would never use it to author original material nor would I rely on its output without verification.
That said, today as we speak AI is extremely helpful to me in these ways:
-
As a big-picture editor to suggest or expand on ideas I had not considered in a document I author (ChatGPT)
-
To replace 90% of my traditional Google searches for basic personal information (Bing Chat)
-
Equally helpful (and thus always a companion source) in doing a traditional PubMed literature search (Perplexity/Bing Chat)
-
Superior to any other traditional source when I am doing research either for personal or professional purposes and I am explicitly seeking rebuttal arguments to be sure I have not missed something in my analysis
These are truly useful forms of communication where AI today offers capabilities not found elsewhere.
I agree its hallucinations are an issue and thus it cannot be relied upon without verification. But misinformation has been around for eons. Both sides of the Atlantic have a long history of tabloid journalism going back at least a century. So I am not worried that AI presents yet another way of spreading misinformation by those who do not care about truth. Instead I am glad that it offers another way to supplement (but not replace) sources for research and analysis in ways never before possible.