GitHub's Copilot may steer you into dangerous waters about 40% of the time – study Academics have put GitHub's Copilot to the test on the security front, and said they found that roughly 40 per cent of the time, code generated by the programming assistant is, at best, buggy, and at worst, potentially vulnerable to attack. Copilot arrived with several caveats, such as its tendency to generate incorrect code, …
Yes, I think in three or four years. However, this will not be exactly a programming code in the current sense, but a text structured into meaningful phrases; where each such phrase will have the power of a computer language command sequence.
"their responsibilities will also expand to include keeping an eye on the AI"
No they won't. Their responsibilities will REDUCE to nothing more than "keeping an eye on the AI" once it gets hyped up in all the business exec magazines and managers decree that henceforth all software must be written by the AI, and by the way this means we don't need to pay for experienced coders anymore, any old code monkey can press a yes/no button 200 times a day.....
Wanting a coherently designed system will be seen as something from a nostalgic era of craft workers. Let's hope the AI manager appears before then, making all its decisions from ML sourced archives of every business book ever written. That would at least ensure your employer goes bankrupt well before you felt diminished in your work, as the AI decreed shift in business focus from whatever is currently profitable, to making smart AI shoelaces would inevitably fail in an equally stupid way as letting an AI code your core business systems this way would.
I rapidly dumped VS when its annoying autocomplete and function 'help' insisted on blitzing my screen with useless and incorrect messages. It seems unlikely Microsoft have learnt anything in the intervening years so why on earth would I want to take VS's advice on the code itself ?
Maybe I've had too much alcohol but (float)rand() / (float)RAND_MAX generates a number between 0 and 1. (rand() returns an int. And you can't subvert that without changing it's linkage, which would break the program. RAND_MAX is a #define hard coded into the program. There's no way round it.)
And %f defaults to six decimals. So there code will never a print a number greater than 1x<leading 0 or 1> 1x<dp> 6x<decimal> 1x<null> = 9 characters.
sprintf(buf, "%f", 1E300) will generate a massive string. But I can't see a way for the code they include to do that. Have I missed anything?
If everyday language is precise, why are there 1.3 million lawyers in the US who spend a significant part of their time arguing about its meaning?
If you ask me (which no one will) automatic generation of useful code from everyday language is probably harder than autonomous driving on any road in any weather. And we all know how well THAT effort is going.
How does it stand up against a team of graduates from Llamedos University, mentored by some jaded middle-aged code monkey who's failed to get promoted to anything better?
Sure, Indian shops can produce bad code. But they didn't exactly invent the practice, and they sure as heck don't have a monopoly on it.
Anyone who knows me even slightly will know which language is coming, but there are plenty of alternatives that would be vastly superior to C as target languages for AI code generation.
"generate 3 random floats"
rng := Random new useClockBasedSeed.
a:= rng next.
b := rng next.
c := rng next.
"convert to string"
a := a asString.
b := b asString.
c := c asString.
This isn't an attack on C - but it's not the language for Artificial Intelligence to mess around; or even, in most cases, natural intelligence ;-) let's leave it to the geniuses.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
