> That's where you've lost me. Emails are not usually a source of value, and their usefulness is not usually measured in complexity. Most of a CSRs entire job

> That's where you've lost me. Emails are not usually a source of value, and their usefulness is not usually measured in complexity. Most of a CSRs entire job is to be the subject matter expert for the company's customers so their source of value to the company consists of answering customer questions, generally via email. Many other roles at a company consist of basically: goto meeting, interact on slack, read emails, send emails. (Then go to more meetings.) The PR department also sends a lot of emails (with slide decks). Of course, given the news of late, it can also write the emails that are the CEO's job to write: https://futurism.com/chatgpt-shamelessly-writes-letter-announcing-layoffs-while-promoting-execs-and-quoting-mlk https://futurism.com/chatgpt-shamelessly-writes-letter-annou... Measuring someone's output by the number of emails sent is a bad real metric to use, for obvious reasons, but I hope it still gets my point across - that ChatGPU is a force multiplier wherever it can be used. Emails are but one aspect, but it's one that almost everyone actually uses. Not everyone is in such a role and I think a lot of people have myopia on its lack of usefulness because of that. It's really good at breaking down a problem. Eg "what pieces do I need to build to make an app like uber". Followed by "what's that like compared to airbnb?" I can write a really good answer those questions but chatgpt is able to output a perfectly reasonable outline while I'm still waiting on Google Docs to load. (Okay, slight exaggeration, Google Docs isn't that slow to load, but I wish it were faster.) > ChatGPT would not help with the email issues in my personal life, because it simply does not know what should be in the emails. Actually I've found the opposite. My personal life has no corporate IT policy prohibiting me from telling it who slept with whom. It's been a good resource to help me reframe my thoughts outside of more limited therapy sessions, especially when I've got burning questions at 1am and therapy's not for another week. For things where my kneejerk response is often comes across as toxic, combative, critical, and ultimately not helpful, I've found that ChatGPT is able to help me rephrase what I'm trying to say in a way that the person I'm saying it to will actually hear my message. Eg "my partner keeps drinking all my alcohol. please help me tell her that's a problem for multiple reasons in a way that facilitates conversation instead of getting combative and abusive and controlling". (not true but hopefully you're picking up what I'm putting down :) Arguably I should already know that stuff, but they didn't have EQ classes in programmer school. Even if I did though, it's still useful as a refresher before going into a difficult conversation like that. With the expanded context window of GPT4, you might be able to just dump the emails conversation in and ask it questions about the communications. > I was under the impression that it could. Leetcode problems are the kind of thing I'd expect a GPT model to be good at. Bottom of page 5 of https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf :) Hard's, well, hard. Or at least, non-trivial. What's more salient though is that there are multi-million dollar businesses that don't involve code solving anything as hard as a hard-level leetcode question as their business challenges lie elsewhere. > How did you know it was correct? It's bash. It's not remotely provably correct and there are no unit tests but I ran it and it worked. I can find the docs (though man bash is annoyingly difficult to use.) but in the end, being told the answer is way easier than deducing it. The vulgar, NSFW example of this is https://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=ls+-cuntflaps https://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=ls+-cuntflaps. Sure you can look up the man page for ls and figure out what those arguments mean, but explainshell just tells you that without having to scroll through a bunch of documentation about other possible arguments. (Though, ChatGPT couldn't answer what that command does.) > With ChatGPT, how do you know it hasn't just made something up, and introduced some kind of subtle security vulnerability into your script? I mean I'm sending strings to mysql -e. I'm sure it has security vulnerabilities. So your point's valid. But it's a real world example of where it saved me time and more importantly, context switching. I could have figured it out, but then I'd have my "how to bash" hat on and not my "how to SQL" hat on, or vice versa. And it takes me a second to change programming language hats. If I'm jumping from language to language to language, it's really useful for telling me if I want len(str), str.length(), str.size(), or ${#str}. Or like Excel. There's a certain class of problem where Excel is the right solution (many times when interacting with other, non-programmer people), but I'm not an expert and so getting the answer to questions about how to use formulas via ChatGPT is way easier than the alternative. I wish I was smarter and could just keep all that stuff straight in my head, on top of the problem I'm actually trying to solve. But I'm not, so I find it very useful. I use an specific incident where ChatGPT was able to help solve a problem for me, as an real-world example where it saved me time and effort. I'm saying it solved problem of type X for me, you're saying it fails at problems of type Y. Don't use it for problems of type Y then! If my job is solving X problems, it just a lot easier, or I got a lot faster. If your job is solving Y problems though, well you'll probably have a job longer than me, for one, but I'm trying to point out that there are swaths of industry solving for X and not Y.