I have tried to get ChatGPT to generate code and I agree that it can be a frustrating process. I was mostly just trying to make a meta point on how the other c

I have tried to get ChatGPT to generate code and I agree that it can be a frustrating process. I was mostly just trying to make a meta point on how the other commenter was thinking about AI vs human intelligence. Specifically, this idea that intelligences which don't have conscious experience cannot be capable of human-level problem solving. I personally suspect that's wrong, but either way it's a hypothesis asserted with zero evidence. I think there's also something to be said about the inaccuracy criticism people level at ChatGPT (and LLMs more generally). I have worked with software engineers who really struggle to understand seemingly simple concepts and would often make errors I saw as trivial. Even excellent software developers sometimes make stupid mistakes and believe stupid things. I don't think ChatGPT being wrong a lot is reason to dismiss it entirely. I think it's interesting how the commenter seemed to noticed ChatGPT was producing bad code / recommendations while his colleagues presumably did not. I think what we can say is that current irritations of LLMs aren't quite as good as expert humans, but they're good enough that they commonly convince less capable humans otherwise. For some people it seems they're reliable enough to delegate some amount of trust to. But experts knowing better seem overly quick to dismiss LLMs while often making unsupported claims about how they can't do `x` thing because they don't have some human property. I think over the next couple of years we'll find that human intelligence isn't directly comparable to AI and these criticisms are kinda silly and overly dismissive of the usefulness of LLMs. Both human intelligence and AI will have their own pros and cons and those pros and cons will be weighted differently depending on the human's level of expertise. For example, if I'm asking ChatGPT about history, I do assign it some level of trust over my own beliefs because I'm not a history expert and I know ChatGPT is generally right more often than I am. It could still be wrong of course, but so could a human expert. And even if I cared enough about getting a right answer that I did my own research I could still be misled and come to wrong conclusions. However, if I was a history expert I suspect I'd be likely to see a lot of holes in the stuff ChatGPT says and would therefore be less inclined to trust it over my own expertises on the subject. Whether it's right or wrong to trust in my opinion is going to depend far more on the context it's being used and your own ability in that field, and much less on whether you believe it's self-aware or conscious.