REVIEW 1 cited by
Navigating Complexity in Software Engineering: A Prototype for Comparing GPT-n Solutions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Navigating the diverse solution spaces of non-trivial software engineering tasks requires a combination of technical knowledge, problem-solving skills, and creativity. With multiple possible solutions available, each with its own set of trade-offs, it is essential for programmers to evaluate the various options and select the one that best suits the specific requirements and constraints of a project. Whether it is choosing from a range of libraries, weighing the pros and cons of different architecture and design solutions, or finding unique ways to fulfill user requirements, the ability to think creatively is crucial for making informed decisions that will result in efficient and effective software. However, the interfaces of current chatbot tools for programmers, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or GitHub Copilot, are optimized for presenting a single solution, even for complex queries. While other solutions can be requested, they are not displayed by default and are not intuitive to access. In this paper, we present our work-in-progress prototype "GPTCompare", which allows programmers to visually compare multiple source code solutions generated by GPT-n models for the same programming-related query by highlighting their similarities and differences.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
"Give me the code" -- Log Analysis of First-Year CS Students' Interactions With GPT
First-year CS students, given no prompt training, mostly obtained usable code from ChatGPT and often incorporated it, though only about half chose between two alternatives in a way the authors count as critical judgment.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.