zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
I think this time is the good one. ChatGPT has reached a level where we finally can think of building actually useful products on top of "AI".

Note that nobody is pretending that ChatGPT is "true" intelligence (whatever that means), but i believe the excitement comes from seeing something that could have real application (and so, yes, everybody is going to pretend to have incorporated "AI" in their product for the next 2 years probably). After 50 years of unfulfilled hopes from the AI field, i don't think it's totally unfair to see a bit of (over)hype.

>>bsaul+jb
I really don't understand how engineers are having good experiences with it; a lot of the stuff I've seen it output w.r.t. swe is only correct if you're very generous with your interpretation of it (re: dangerous if you use it as anything more than a casual glance at the tech). W.r.t. anything else it outputs, it's either so generic that I could do it better, outright wrong (e.g. cannot handle something as simple as tic tac toe), or functions as an unreliable source (in cases where I simply don't have the background).

I wish I could derive as much utility as everyone else that's praising it. I mean, it's great fun but it doesn't wow me in the slightest when it comes to augmenting anything beyond my pleasure.

>>rxhern+gd
I agree. Even understanding its limitations as essentially a really good bullshit generator, I have yet to find a good use for it in my life. I've tried using it for brainstorming on creative activities and it consistently disappoints, it frequently spouts utter nonsense if asked to explain something, code it produces is questionable at best, and it is even a very boring conversation partner.