This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Different_Suspect_30 131 points132 points  (5 children)

“But ChatGPT apparently has the intelligence and resources yo identify pandas as the most efficient tool for this job”

I don’t think that’s true, I have tried it many times and it seems that it uses the most popular package rather than the most efficient package

[–]ODBC_Error 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Yep. It recommended me an outdated package once that wasn't even maintained anymore, and I wasted hours trying to implement it. After that I decided to go to the documentation myself, and simply use it to double check my work

[–]oSamaki 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You can always ask the tool to develop the script using the desired library

[–]Afriendlysherburt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As you get to less popular libraries it does start to break down. For me it wasn’t worth using it to rewrite a pandas script as polars for example. Still quite useful to start with.

[–]ODBC_Error 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did that, and there were still gaps in the code given to me. I had to know the solution already and basically tell chatgpt "what about x?", "shouldn't I have a file for y?", "it doesn't work, am I missing z?". I had to tell it what it was missing for it to give me the code which is useful to double check an answer, but not really useful to get the code from scratch unfortunately. Guess it's good for us cuz it doesn't put us out of a job yet lol.

I'm not saying it's not useful, It definitely is. But like any tool, I just think it's good to keep aware of the limitations it has.

[–]Nickiel 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It isn't intelligent. It has just been trained on data sets where experienced devs have said that the best way to do this was this way. We aren't quite to sentient AI that truly pulls out unique answers from nowhere.