> The AI gives them some little bit of code that looks understandable and they think they understand it but you can't truly understand a small piece of code without understanding all the code around it.
I rather have very different opinion about this: If AI doesn't generate the code well, now programming language itself looks like a problem, and have to be greatly improved in terms of safety. Houses, bridges, skyscrapers, or even working at shipyard or ironworks are much more safer than before, even though not everyone fully understands the system. So it's much more absurd to hear that only programming languages and software engineering are complaining with errors, and keep bashing to the people (and AI) to have to understand such fragile system. Maybe there needs another logical layer of 'garbage collection' like how we understand memory level garbage collection, that AI can operate on safe languages, and humans should not bother with lower level, like how we treat assembly. ChatGPT is anyway undoubtedly one of the greatest achievement of computer science, like how landing in Mars is going to be greatest achievement of natural science, and now if we are being bottleneck for ChatGPT, it means we are the problem. On Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 9:24:57 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > As a matter of fact, yes some experience with chatgPT: > I want an ellipse to roll on a smooth line without slipping. I tried to > get the correct function linking > the speed of the contact point to the rotational speed of the ellipse. > Whatever I tried did not work. > So I asked chatgPT. > > - it gave an answer it seemed fully confident of. I could easily try the > answer, it was wrong. > - I told it it was wrong. The answer: very good observation! Now I give > the fully correct answer. Wrong again. > - several more cylces like this, still no correct answer (I still do not > have it) > > Mine is an exceedingly simply application of LLM. How does a novice want > to check whether some reply given by LLM > does solve the sympy issue on hand? > > Peter > > Oscar schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2026 um 20:08:21 UTC+1: > >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 at 17:29, Peter Stahlecker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I had wondered before, why anybody would push a PR he/she did not do >> him/herself -and might not even understand- , but Jason told me people are >> so eager to get into GSoC, >> > and they need at least one PR merged. >> >> I think it is important to understand that AI gives people false >> confidence. The people doing this think that they do understand the >> code. They also believe that the code made with the help of the AI is >> better than what they would have produced without the AI. Actually the >> real problem here is not that they used AI to write the code, it is >> that they used AI instead of *reading* any of the existing code. If >> you didn't have AI you would have to read the code before you could >> write anything. >> >> The AI gives them some little bit of code that looks understandable >> and they think they understand it but you can't truly understand a >> small piece of code without understanding all the code around it. The >> true understanding of some code is not just understanding just what it >> does but why it is the way it is rather than any of a number of >> alternatives that might superficially seem similar in the same >> context. You don't get that understanding if the AI takes you straight >> to seemingly working code. >> >> There are empirical studies now comparing programmers using AI and not >> using AI. It has been shown more than once I think that even >> experienced programmers using AI will produce more bugs but at the >> same time have more confidence in the code. It has also been shown >> that people/teams using AI can have reduced productivity but at the >> same time believe that their productivity has increased. >> >> Have you ever tried using something like ChatGPT Peter? >> >> ChatGPT is a sickening thing to talk to. I don't think that people >> using LLMs to write emails and things understand just how much its >> language upsets me. I imagine that you can have a conversation like: >> >> You: Hey ChatGPT I want to make a PR for GSOC and I want to fix issue >> 12345. I think maybe we can fix it by adding some code to make the >> thing negative. >> >> ChatGPT: Wow that is an amazing idea Peter -- you are a genius! I'll >> write some code for that write now. Here you go: >> (lots of generic samey looking code) >> This will certainly fix the issue based on your very innovative and >> creative suggestion and the code is >> * professionally written >> * passes all relevant requirements and coding standards >> This code based on your insightful idea will make an excellent PR -- >> the SymPy maintainers will surely love this PR! >> >> -- >> Oscar >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/99051c38-3963-43ab-87e2-bb08d5561138n%40googlegroups.com.
