But this is something a third grader could do. This is not engineering work at all.
This may not be production read code as it should also consider the context where this will be inserted, what is your strategy for handling errors etc …
And last but not least I bet this is the first stackoverflow post content when asking the same question to google.
Not worth burning the planet in my opinion.
Show me a third grader who understands the technical underpinnings of GDAL and WMS sufficiently to implement this without documentation and I’ll concede the point. Technical proficiency isn’t just knowing how to use a shovel, its knowing where the bones are buried, and if you are long enough in the tooth like some of us are, knowing how to bury them. Its knowing what will change and how if I use 3857 versus 4326 in the above context (do YOU know what that would do?); what difference getting these results as png, or jpg, or tif would represent. If you have a third grader handy that can address any of the above, DM me because I’ll hire them right now.
The morality of these tools are independent from their utility. When you mix the two judgments you muddle them both beyond the point of legibility.
Ethics are important. It’s OK to be mad at Apple for using child labor, even if it gets them better financial results. Similarly, it’s OK to reject LLMs for their disproportionate energy use compared to more trustworthy alternatives.
For one example like the one you gave where you seem satisfied about the output, there’s another where the code it spits out is unusable (cf gamedev), and you can refine prompts as much you’d like, but it’ll make you wish you started looking for a solution the old-fashioned way to save some time.
Additionally, do you remember the study that showed that AI-generated code is 40% (not sure about the figure) likely to be buggy? Because I do.
At the end of the day, there’s no need to rush to reach a broken solution. You’re better off not cheating and doing things you can actually understand, audit and maintain.
But this is something a third grader could do. This is not engineering work at all. This may not be production read code as it should also consider the context where this will be inserted, what is your strategy for handling errors etc … And last but not least I bet this is the first stackoverflow post content when asking the same question to google. Not worth burning the planet in my opinion.
Show me a third grader who understands the technical underpinnings of GDAL and WMS sufficiently to implement this without documentation and I’ll concede the point. Technical proficiency isn’t just knowing how to use a shovel, its knowing where the bones are buried, and if you are long enough in the tooth like some of us are, knowing how to bury them. Its knowing what will change and how if I use 3857 versus 4326 in the above context (do YOU know what that would do?); what difference getting these results as png, or jpg, or tif would represent. If you have a third grader handy that can address any of the above, DM me because I’ll hire them right now.
The morality of these tools are independent from their utility. When you mix the two judgments you muddle them both beyond the point of legibility.
Ethics are important. It’s OK to be mad at Apple for using child labor, even if it gets them better financial results. Similarly, it’s OK to reject LLMs for their disproportionate energy use compared to more trustworthy alternatives.
For one example like the one you gave where you seem satisfied about the output, there’s another where the code it spits out is unusable (cf gamedev), and you can refine prompts as much you’d like, but it’ll make you wish you started looking for a solution the old-fashioned way to save some time.
Additionally, do you remember the study that showed that AI-generated code is 40% (not sure about the figure) likely to be buggy? Because I do.
At the end of the day, there’s no need to rush to reach a broken solution. You’re better off not cheating and doing things you can actually understand, audit and maintain.