▲ 103 ▼ AI chatbots were tasked to run a tech company. They built software in under seven minutes — for less than $1. (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 2 years ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] igorlogius@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Do managment next and lets see who's gonna be replaced first permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They did do management-- They modeled the whole company as individual "staff" communicating with each other: CEO-bot communicates a product direction to the CTO-bot who communicates technical requirements to the developer-bot who asks for a "beautiful user interface" (lol) from the "art designer" (lol). It's all super rudimentary and goofy, but management was definitely part of the experiment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] igorlogius@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood ... but now I wonder which part of the "company" was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card: In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing or other strategies. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrginger@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* This is who will get replaced first, and they don't want to see it. They're the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They did do management-- They modeled the whole company as individual "staff" communicating with each other: CEO-bot communicates a product direction to the CTO-bot who communicates technical requirements to the developer-bot who asks for a "beautiful user interface" (lol) from the "art designer" (lol). It's all super rudimentary and goofy, but management was definitely part of the experiment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] igorlogius@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood ... but now I wonder which part of the "company" was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card: In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing or other strategies. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] igorlogius@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, my mistake i kind of misunderstood ... but now I wonder which part of the "company" was most easy to replace and where the most and least failure rate/processing was located/necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card: In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing or other strategies. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago It was testing that the code worked, of course :) That was the only place that had human intervention, other than a) providing the initial prompt, and b) providing icons and stuff for the GUI, instead of using generated ones. That was the "get out of jail free" card: In cases where an interpreter struggles with identifying fine-grained logical issues, the involvement of a human client in software testing becomes optional. CHATDEV enables the human client to provide feedback and suggestions in natural language, similar to a reviewer or tester, using black-box testing or other strategies. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrginger@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* This is who will get replaced first, and they don't want to see it. They're the most important, valuable part of the company in their own mind, yet that was the one thing the AI got right, the management part. It still needed the creative mind of a human programmer to do the code properly, or think outside the box. permalink fedilink source parent