[vb-8448]

The main problem is that, if you don't know enough details about the domain, *you can never be sure that the response is correct or not*.

So, if you are using it as a “personal assistant” and “supervise it” is a big (very big) deal since it's going to save a lot of time.

There are also some unknowns related to the cost/time needed to train and run the infrastructure behind it that could change a lot of things.

[imoverclocked]

After dealing with a lot of contractors for my house, I feel like close supervision with knowledge of the problem domain is also required of many humans.

[deckard1]

If it's an assistant that you constantly have to double check their work, then they would get fired ASAP.

That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct. There are a whole lot of things in the C API that work but are not correct, such as the gets() function. If I have to do such legwork then it's just as easy to write the code myself.

The utility of AI is proportional to the trust one has in it. Trust is easy to lose and hard to regain. It will take just a few AI mishaps to ruin a product or even an entire industry.

[vb-8448]

> If it's an assistant that you constantly have to double check their work, then they would get fired ASAP.

It's an assistant that creates drafts for you. You still need to check them, but usually reading is a lot easier and less time-consuming than writing. I used it a couple of times to compose some long replies email, and it was just fantastic. I had to fix some minor stuff, but I complete the task in less than 5 minutes while without ChatGPT it would take me about 30 minutes.

> That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct.

You have to run/compile it anyway and if you combine it with existing tools (linters, type checkers and so on) you will detect this kind of anomalies very soon.

[throwaway123--4]

how about with a stackoverflow like site for help? That's the idea I thought of: https://www.gptoverflow.link/

[vb-8448]

Honestly, I don't see any value in it, I already have the chat prompt and just type inside it the question instead of googling and be redirected to “gptoverlow”.

Maybe can be useful if actual humans validate/fix ChatGPT response, but in this case probably better to put effort to fix response directly in ChatGPT.

[throwaway123--4]

Not sure you understand. That is what I was going for. 1. share an interesting prompt 2. Have someone validate the response if you're not comfortable with what ChatGPT gave you.