Based on my recent experience using it to write code, that would certainly help for some--but not all--bugs coming out of GPT-4.
I posted about it in a different thread, but this was my experience:
>Interestingly, I used GPT-4 to create a simply Neovim plugin yesterday and the experience was not as seamless as I was led to believe it'd be by the hype. It gave me generally ok code, but almost everything was buggy.
>It was able to debug itself sometimes, but the finally finish the plugin I needed to fix the code myself and post it back in the chat, telling it to use my fixed code to create a related function that it was unable to adequately generate.
>The problem I gave it was actually a simplified version of an already simple concept, I did not give it the full details of what I wanted. If you're interested, you can find the final plugin (after my corrections and updating it to allow user configs) here. A printout of the conversation to create the plugin can be found here.
Even with a simplified version of the objective, I had to step in and debug it myself and then give it the "good" code to use further. Maybe if I'd been more patient, it could've fixed itself entirely, but the experience to me seemed more like pair programming with a junior/mid-level software engineer. I was able to immediately see the issue with it's code, even though it was not.
Will still be revolutionary though. Definitely a massive boost to productivity using it, but I would trust it running in production without a thorough code review.
tinkr_ t1_jdw30p3 wrote
Reply to comment by ghostfaceschiller in [D] GPT4 and coding problems by enryu42
Based on my recent experience using it to write code, that would certainly help for some--but not all--bugs coming out of GPT-4.
I posted about it in a different thread, but this was my experience: >Interestingly, I used GPT-4 to create a simply Neovim plugin yesterday and the experience was not as seamless as I was led to believe it'd be by the hype. It gave me generally ok code, but almost everything was buggy.
>It was able to debug itself sometimes, but the finally finish the plugin I needed to fix the code myself and post it back in the chat, telling it to use my fixed code to create a related function that it was unable to adequately generate.
>The problem I gave it was actually a simplified version of an already simple concept, I did not give it the full details of what I wanted. If you're interested, you can find the final plugin (after my corrections and updating it to allow user configs) here. A printout of the conversation to create the plugin can be found here.
Even with a simplified version of the objective, I had to step in and debug it myself and then give it the "good" code to use further. Maybe if I'd been more patient, it could've fixed itself entirely, but the experience to me seemed more like pair programming with a junior/mid-level software engineer. I was able to immediately see the issue with it's code, even though it was not.
Will still be revolutionary though. Definitely a massive boost to productivity using it, but I would trust it running in production without a thorough code review.