[dmix]

Indeed, this is an assisted brain storming tool, not automated problem solving where you're supposed to trust the result wholesale.

For work I used ChatGPT to write a very specific programming problem and it wasn't a solution you'd ever copy/paste...the lack of context to the surrounding system means that's impractical 99% of the time outside of toy problems.

But it was still super useful for getting my brain working and suggesting a really good basic structure it would have taken me 3-4 failure cycles to get to.

The same exists in DALL-E/GPT for corporate art generation, writing 'essays', or stories or w/e. It's almost never producing the end product (besides toy problems).

So, if it can't do that in the first place, why evaluate it as if that's what it's supposed to be?

[stanete]

I’ve found that the more context I give to it, the better it is to help me solving a problem. If I spend a bunch of minutes giving info about what I’m doing, why I’m doing it and what I personally know about the problem space, it will usually help me to either explore more or to arrive at the solution faster.

When I talk about coaching I meant that I told ChatGPT to answer only with questions. In a way, ChatGPT is good at having socratic conversations. Sometimes it gets out of character but it depends mostly on your answers or questions.

[Molomby]

Keep in mind that...

> The model is able to reference up to approximately 3000 words (or 4000 tokens) from the current conversation - any information beyond that is not stored. (https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6787051-does-chatgpt-rem...)

So if you overflow that it'll loose context.

[Multicomp]

This is how I've used chatgpt as well. A primer for brainstorming that can wander on any tangents you are after