• mrginger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

    • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year 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.