I use it for coding, with mixed results, for getting me going in the right direction. I take everything it says with a grain of salt. Through some original que

I use it for coding, with mixed results, for getting me going in the right direction. I take everything it says with a grain of salt. Through some original queries about some people, I came to realize that a GPT is a stochastic parrot optimized for plausibility. Given a Venn diagram of plausible and reality, they have a large overlap. Our ideas of plausibility are informed by common repetitive observations of reality. So GPTs almost always sound truthful, and much of what they generate overlaps with truth; sometimes it does some interesting synthesizing. For code hints in particular, which I hit it up for 2 or 3 times a day on whim, I find that the domain matters. Asking for how to do things in Jetpack Compose, I get all kinds of weird answers. Compose is a highly volatile space, GPT will synthesize function signature that are amalgamations with 3 year old stuff and newer. It helps refine my internet searches. Thank heavens for the kotlin/compose slack channels. When I ask GPT for mainstream Python stuff, it does pretty well. Recently asking for help with parsing ical formats, it nailed a number of questions. As I moved into handling recurring events, it started getting weirder. It wrote plausible looking code with methods that didn’t exist but were hybrids of others. It missed letting me know there was a library specifically for recurring iCal events. When it came to dealing with isoweeks and timezones, it got all the right modules and functions, but put them together in weird ways. Like a blind person assembling a puzzle. C code it does decently well. Elixir, it struggles with. Many of its elixir answers are very dated. By and all, I treat it as a way of generating prompts/idea for me to pursue. It’s like having an eidetic four year old at your disposal whose read all of the code ever and can mention all kinds of things from association, but doesn’t really know. Or like interviewing someone who’s crammed on a subject, but hasn’t really experienced what they’re talking about.