[Julesman]

I haven't found GPT this reliable for coding. I've been maxing my hourly usage of ChatGPT since it launched and then switching to CoPilot and I have lots of good things to say about it. But reliability is not one of them.

It has a tendency to ignore instructions, as mentioned, but also to get hung up on certain approaches or to use a different approach each time its asked. I'd guess it's very reliable for text generation. But for code, I'm pretty sure the quality of the result would vary quite a from instance to instance.

This could very well cut the work needed greatly. But it doesn't come close to replacing anyone. ... Yet. Give it two years.

[nmfisher]

I gave up on ChatGPT for code generation because I ended up spending more time tweaking prompts/fixing outputs than if I had just written it myself in the first place. I think this is probably the future of "coding" but it's not quite there yet.

Is CoPilot any better?

[spacebanana7]

The UX of CoPilot is a lot better. It feels like a smarter version of autocomplete.

They're based on the same GPT3 model so the quality of suggested code is similar but the ability to accept/reject suggestions based on tabbing in CoPilot makes it much less hassle to use.

[fisf]

Same here. ChatGPT kept coming up with syntactically plausible Java code. However, it kept using library methods that plainly don't exist for specific fields.

[danielbln]

I've found it to be significantly better at code mutation and documentation.