[hansjan]

Have you tried doing this yourself? On Twitter etc. you see some really cool cherry-picked examples that are quite easy to break when replicating them yourself.

It is often confidently incorrect. Which is easy to spot if you know the subject matter, but nearly impossible if you are not familiar with the subject.

[tobyhinloopen]

I found the same thing! I asked multiple questions and a lot of things were “confidently incorrect”. It was the exact term I thought of seeing these answers.

I found it funny because it made it more human-like as well.

(Example: “what’s the difference between timestamp and timestamptz in postgresql?” will answer that timestamptz will store the time zone and takes more space, which is both incorrect!)

I also asked it general, abstract programming advice and it gave pretty well-reasoned arguments mentioning maintainability and readability.

[paulcole]

> It is often confidently incorrect.

My god, it truly can replace computer programmers.

[brookst]

As a lifelong product manager, I’ve always considered my specs to be prompt engineering for incredibly impressive but sometimes misguided intelligences.

[LeeroyWasHere]

It can barely spell out the correct ingredients of certain dishes, wouldn't trust it.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

GPT3 is as good and reliable as a Tesla autopilot.

[fvdessen]

I've tried it and it works. It sometimes makes mistakes which it corrects when pointed out. And it's going to make less and less mistakes as the technology improves. It also can do many things I am not able to do. It's incredible.

[base698]

These were all examples I tried myself.