zlacker

>>Josely+(OP)
My use of ChatGPT has just organically gone down 90%. It's unable to do any sort of task of non-trivial complexity e.g. complex coding tasks, writing complex prose that conforms precisely to what's been asked etc. Also I hate the fact that it has to answer everything in bullet points, even when it's not needed, clearly rlhf-ed. At this point, my question types have become what you would ask a tool like perplexity.

>>nafizh+Mb
Sure, but consider not using it for complex tasks. My productivity has skyrocketed with ChatGPT precisely because I don't use it for complex tasks, I use it to automate all of the trivial boilerplate stuff.

ChatGPT writes excellent API documentation and can also document snippets of code to explain what they do, it does 80% of the work for unit tests, it can fill in simple methods like getters/setters, initialize constructors, I've even had it write a script to perform some substantial code refactoring.

Use ChatGPT for grunt work and focus on the more advanced stuff yourself.

>>Kranar+Xr
Is it better at those types of things than copilot? Or even just conventional boilerplate IDE plugins?

>>ekms+qF
If there is an IDE plugin then I use it first and foremost, but some refactoring can't be done with IDE plugins. Today I had to write some pybind11 bindings, basically export some C++ functionality to Python. The bindings involve templates and enums and I have a very particular way I like the naming convention to be when I export to Python. Since I've done this before so I copied and pasted examples of how I like to export templates to ChatGPT and then asked it to use that same coding style to export some more classes. It managed to do it without fail.

This is a kind of grunt work that years ago would have taken me hours and it's demoralizing work. Nowadays when I get stuff like this, it's just such a breeze.

As to copilot, I have not used it but I think it's powered by GPT4.