zlacker

>>mfigui+M3
Frankly, OpenAI seems to be losing its luster, and fast.

Plugins were a failure. GPTs are a little better, but I still don't see the product market fit. GPT-4 is still king, but not by that much any more. It's not even clear that they're doing great research, because they don't publish.

GPT-5 has to be incredibly good at this point, and I'm not sure that it will be.

>>skepti+(OP)
I think OpenAI will do fine, but I have doubts about ChatGPT as a product. It’s just a chat UI, and I’m not convinced the UI will be chat 3 years from now.

Personally, the chat UI is the main limiting factor in my own adoption, because a) it’s not in the tool I’m trying to use, and b) it’s quicker for me to do the work than describe the work I need doing.

>>danpal+8y
I suppose it depends what you use it for; my time in search engine has reduced massively - and so has time 'not in the tool I'm trying to use' because it's been so much faster for me to find answers to some queries with ChatGPT than a search engine.

I'm not particularly interested in having it outright program for me (other than say to sketch how to do something as inspiration, which I'll rewrite rather than copy) because I think typically I'd want to do it a certain way and it would take far longer to NLP an LLM to write it in whatever syntax than to WhateverSyntaxProgram it myself.

>>OJFord+KB
Coding assistants copy your style to a fault. You got to be careful about things like typos in comments, or it'll start suggesting sloppy code as well. And conversely you have to be careful about overly bureaucratic conventions (doc comments for things entirely described by their name, etc.), or it will suggest overly wrapped hypercorporate code.

But used as autocomplete, it's definitively a time saver. Most of us read faster than we type.