Flappy bird is more complicated than pong, and GPT4 apparently did it in 'one shot'. I think there's improvement being made, even if it's not as impressive as you'd like it to be.
I don't know about that. Check out the other GPT-related thread on the front page right now. GPT-4 fails to solve programming problems that are much simpler than writing a whole game (even a relatively simple one). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35193188
It's really not impressive to me. Humans are gullible and want to anthropomorphize computers. Every time someone claims a LLM like GPT-* can do something apparently amazing, we're seeing the ELIZA effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect) in action.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you should find it impressive or amazing. What I am saying is that things are visibly progressing (before: badly written pong, today: successful flappy bird clone), regardless of how impressive one finds it.
Of course, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. But I don't have access to GPT4, so I can't check how it does on Pong written in PyGame.
>Any software developer can access GitHub and StackOverflow - can they do it in a single shot as quickly as GPT?
I think the answer to this question is yes? If the developer can find a working example that they can copy paste (which is what GP is saying GPT-4 is essentially doing).
It’s actually just as likely for GPT-4 to have pasted a broken code example than a working one; it doesn’t understand if the code is correct.
Flappy bird is more complicated than pong, and GPT4 apparently did it in 'one shot'. I think there's improvement being made, even if it's not as impressive as you'd like it to be.