>> I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, transform my local data and generally combine new concepts in unique and sometim

>> I’ve been using it for the past week to “inform” me how to do various tasks, transform my local data and generally combine new concepts in unique and sometimes funny ways. It has taught me, it has saved me time, and it has inspired me. You have to put at least a little effort into coaxing it. All that said, yes.. it is still basically autocomplete, but also useful sometimes. > There is literally nothing concrete I can reply to in your fluff. Maybe your experience really means something & is real. But there's no case made for or against that. You haven't made any case for yourself. There's no clear correlating examples. You've crowed up a belief, without support or cause. > So far I'm not sure which if any of these systems even can look at your code. What have you seen that can? I think the replier has been quite concrete, and I think it would be quite clear what they are referring to if you have given these tools an earnest try. Nevertheless, let me give what I've been using them for: I've used copilot to autocomplete boilerplate. I've used ChatGPT to start brainstorming gift ideas, to look for documentation, to look for suggestions for study resources, and to get (always incorrect here and there) code examples of usages of public code libraries. In all these cases I can also get somewhere with some focused thought and research, but AI helps me do it faster with less brainpower. Then one's work is lightened just like how an unreliable student or intern can lighten a workload. This is what I suppose the replier means by autocomplete, where the discovery (which can be hard) as well as easy work is done mostly right for you by the AI. Actually, in my experience, these tools are better as assistants and as smart rubber ducks than in helping to produce good code, where IDE tools still feel superior.