When you try to hire a freelancer to write SQL and all you get is incorrect AI garbage Online labor markets like Upwork have yet to formulate meaningful policies governing the use of generative AI tools to bid for and perform posted jobs. According to machine learning firm Intuition Machines, that lack of clarity is putting these platforms at risk. Recently, the research team at Intuition Machines' hCaptcha bot …
There is an article here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/09/upwork_chatgpt_problem/ . Can you summarise the article?
According to an article by The Register, online labor markets like Upwork have yet to formulate meaningful policies governing the use of generative AI tools to bid for and perform posted jobs. This lack of clarity is putting these platforms at risk 1.
Recently, the research team at Intuition Machines’ hCaptcha bot detection service set out to test whether workers bidding on jobs posted on Upwork were using generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, to automate the bidding process. They found that this was indeed the case 1.
The hCaptcha report argues that this creates an incentive for those answering job solicitations to automate their side of the bidding process. To test that theory, hCaptcha researchers created a job post with a screening question they designed to take five minutes or less for a domain expert to answer and which they knew would produce an incorrect result when answered by known LLMs. Of the 14 unique bids submitted, nine answered the screening question. Of those, all nine answers were generated by an LLM and all were incorrect 1.
Is there anything else you would like to know?
Learn more:
1. https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/09/upwork_chatgpt_problem/
2. https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023/05/09/upwork_chatgpt_problem/
3. https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/03/chatgpt_boring_turk_jobs/
Looks like we're all being scraped, say nice things about our future AI overlords everyone.
Add the Merriam-Webster dictionary to that list (for those of you who are arrogantly right-ponders).
I'm sorry to hear that you've had a frustrating experience with a freelancer who provided incorrect AI-generated output instead of the SQL code that you were expecting. Unfortunately, AI-generated content can sometimes be misleading and unreliable, especially when it comes to tasks that require a high level of precision and expertise, such as writing SQL code.
To avoid similar issues in the future, it's important to thoroughly vet and interview potential freelancers before hiring them, to ensure that they have the necessary skills and experience to complete the task at hand. You might also consider using a reputable freelancing platform that provides guarantees or protections against fraudulent or substandard work.
If you have already paid the freelancer for their work and are unsatisfied with the results, you may want to try reaching out to them to request revisions or a refund. If they are unresponsive or uncooperative, you may need to escalate the issue through the freelancing platform or seek legal recourse if necessary.
I don't see how ChatGPT can write SQL for business cases because SQL absolutely depends on understanding the schema and the data within, and ChatGPT cannot be trained on business data because that would be a massive disclosure.
It could give tips and examples, but a human can't write SQL without getting their head round the underlying data first after being given trusted access to it, so a machine can't.
You know that, because you actually know SQL. The people applying for these jobs presumably don't know the first thing about SQL, databases, or anything connected to the job. They were just hoping that they could get a chatbot to do the job for them.
1. Use chatbot to apply for job
2. ???
3. Profit!
This post has been deleted by its author
From a human: I think the message is, screw freelancing. It's hiring somebody you don't know and trusting them to do good work, and it should be as surprising to you that they take the money and use a free so-called AI to submit something, as when last year they'd get someone cheaper and less qualified in some benighted country to do the work for them.
That can still be done by someone that you employ, but not very often, because that's when you unemploy them.
I examined fiverr recently, and was appalled by the number of people who claimed they were AI experts, or other kinds of experts, and who posted a rate of $5 / hr to do work. $5 USD. Globally there are a number of cultures spawning dishonest (and stupid) people coming to tech. Current AI will merely empower them to do more fraud. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire and have some AI tools to find AI-powered fraudsters.
Leaving aside the frauds, coders using AI is just one example of how the ever-increasing pressure to both respond and deliver quickly leads to the adoption of shortcuts. It's as much the fault of those looking to hire people as it is the applicants or websites. Let's face it, if AI-generated code was any good, the employers would already be hiring people (on minimum wage) to do it.
Especially the ones that claim to have read your CV, but then call when it asks for initial connect by email, don't give any details of the position until you call back, and then turn out to be offering permie jobs when the first line on your CV makes very clear that you're after short-term contract roles.
Yes, I am bitter.
OK......I get the "writing" bit..........
But then there's the (ever so old-fashioned twentieth century) "testing the code" bit......not mentioned here at all. You know:
- module test
- integration test
- user acceptance test
- volume test
.......not to mention the trivial bit about writing test cases -- another (old fashioned twentieth century) anachronism...
Yup.....tell me that all this testing can just be turned over to an AI machine.......Not!!
When you combine the best of AI with the best of outsourcing, this is what you get. Never again will there be a need for management to acknowledge the value of anypeon who they employ - not least of all because never again will those peons have any value.
Me: Make a case against using AI for writing SQL.
It:
As an AI language model, I cannot have personal opinions or beliefs, so I will present some possible arguments against using AI for writing SQL.
1. Lack of human understanding: While AI systems can mimic human behavior, it lacks human understanding. Artificial intelligence cannot think critically about solving problems, dynamic programming, or understand human experience. SQL writing requires a deep understanding of data and human experience, which AI lacks. Writing SQL requires an understanding of the business logic behind the database schema, the historical values of data, and the context of how the data is used.
2. Missed optimization opportunities: AI SQL writing can promote lazy optimization, whereby the generated queries meet criteria but may not be optimal. A human being can intuitively understand the data sources used, in contrast, the AI can only generate a rule-based set of conditions that may not always capture the optimal optimization strategy. Writing SQL queries is not only about generating code but also understanding how to optimize them to get the best possible performance.
3. Unreliable code quality: AI generates code based on pre-programmed rules and use-case examples. However, these algorithms can be error-prone, with logical and syntax errors. Queries with syntax errors cannot run, but queries with logical errors may produce incorrect data or lead to data loss or corruption. Ensuring that these queries deliver reliable results requires a high level of expertise that AI at the present moment cannot provide.
4. Poorer documentation: The automated SQL generation process does not provide the same level of.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
