Look at this, some text and two code examples about generating random numbers. These will not work!
That is from the cookbook written by AI. I guess, the author assumes the readers to improve the book through fixing the errors.
Is the author writing about his project here?
The developers should not fear of losing their jobs to AI in near future, If this is the general level of the codes produced with AI.
From the author’s About page:
AI writes the draft text, then people review.
Seems like the review phase hasn’t happened yet (you might be the one raising an issue on their GitHub repo or just write a comment on the random numbers article itself!). Or maybe the author tried when generating the articles but didn’t run the code samples and didn’t catch the error.
A more general sigh:
Overall Elm doesn’t have that much written about it on the internet and LLMs hallucinate on Elm topics a lot. I’m not feeling very hopeful about this kind of content and wouldn’t use it. I think anybody reading LLM-generated content should adjust their expectations accordingly; it’s best to ask it about things you already know about, where you are able to discern hallucinations from the truth. When somebody is complaining ChatGPT gave them a wrong answer to some Elm question, we can really only help by giving the right answer. Perhaps the person should have come ask the community from the start 
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.