> Weird flex, as that code is like 90% boilerplate[1]. Isn't 90% of code boilerplate anyway? Also, didn't ChatGPT generate more than just the boilerplate? Di

> Weird flex, as that code is like 90% boilerplate[1]. Isn't 90% of code boilerplate anyway? Also, didn't ChatGPT generate more than just the boilerplate? Didn't it interpret what I wanted and generated the code for computing the factorial as well, as well as modifying the boilerplate (e.g. the kernel module name, printed messages, function names, the module description, ...) so that it matches what the kernel module is supposed to do? Which is exactly what a human would do? Aren't you also missing the fact that I gave it a 2-sentence instruction and it "understood" exactly what to do, and then did it? Like a human programmer would do? Which, in sum, is totally the opposite of what you were claiming? > Everyone was freaking out about Copilot and no one seriously ended up using it because it just generates buggy (or copyrighted) code. Don't most programmers also generate buggy code at first? Don't they iterate until the code works, like what ChatGPT does if you give it feedback about the bugs and problems you've encountered? Also, Copilot and ChatGPT have different levels of capabilities, don't assume just because Copilot can't do something, that ChatGPT can't. ChatGPT is clearly a big step forward as you can clearly see from how everyone is freaking out about it. Finally, don't assume that these models are never going to improve, ever again.