5 ms·
I have found it to be a very good verbose search engine that is just wrong 25% of the time. Like “how do I do X in Julia” will give me the answer or just random
by rtpg 4y ago
I have found it to be a very good verbose search engine that is just wrong 25% of the time. Like “how do I do X in Julia” will give me the answer or just random noise that looks like an answer, but it’s faster than trawling through Google _if an answer exists_
- ramraj07 4y agoJust google and add “stackoverflow” ?
- throwaway71271 4y agoits much better than the average stackoverflow
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoIncidentally, SO has a note about not allowing answers written by ChatGPT.
- rtpg 4y agoI mean usually there’s not the exact question in Stack Overflow , so chatGPT is good at coalescing the data together
- guiambros 4y agoHonest question: have you used it? Because if you did, you'd see its leaps and bounds better than clicking on a handful of links, scanning through verbose and poorly written answers in Stack Overflow, until you find the right one. It doesn't replace SO, but it certainly complements it. Plus, it acts more like an assistant (and, per OP's post, "...who is often wrong - need to read their work thoroughly"). Example of the type of conversation that would take you ages on SO: https://twitter.com/dankrad/status/1601634193385328641 https://twitter.com/dankrad/status/1601634193385328641
- dpkirchner 4y agoA lot of answers on StackOverflow are just awful -- the bar is incredibly low. I'm not sure SO will serve even a quarter of its current traffic by 2025.
- layer8 4y agoYeah, I tried it for questions where Google failed me, and ChatGPT then failed me as well, giving either unhelpful answers (sidestepping the point of the question) or wrong answers.