For making new stuff, I agree with you that it's pretty nutty. I'd never ask it to try to invent something novel, the way this does, because it's pretty high-no

For making new stuff, I agree with you that it's pretty nutty. I'd never ask it to try to invent something novel, the way this does, because it's pretty high-noise. I do think it has significant programming advantages insofar as it can analyze existing code and make reasonable permutations of it, though, especially for stuff that's able to effectively analyze your current set of code. "Would it be better to acquire a deeper knowledge"--for the cases described above, actually no? I already have that deeper knowledge. I don't have the attention span (both because this stuff can be boring and because I am frequently randomized) and for a lot of this stuff the gate is actually not solving the problem but the physical act of typing, or even copying and changing. Copilot, at least, absolutely does create bugs, but in my experience they're mostly bugs of the form "this actually isn't typesafe in the way that it's written" and that makes isolating and fixing them clear. (Rarely are those bugs logic bugs, just a burp in the output.) There is a very clear future where this turns into incredible copy-paste garbage because it's not capable of refactoring, and that's a different problem. Avoiding it is why they pay us the medium bucks.