[__alias]

Amazing interfaces for particular scenarios if you look at them from another angle though.

Yesterday I wanted to write a bash script to do a particular task. "

I never properly learnt bash and it takes me a very long time to do something simple, furthermore, in this case, I didn't actually know the particular tools which were needed for what I wanted to write.

After inputting, it correctly solves the exact problem for me which was perfect.

Working backwards, I then asked it to explain what each part of the script was doing -- and learned the syntax for sed etc, along with gaining a better understanding of what what each command was doing.

The point i'm trying to make here, is that it's amazing to tackle some interactions more naturally. Top down, instead of bottom up.

This can help reduce the paralysis that occurs when working with the unknown. Someone very skilled with photoshop might understand the tool very well and work with particular tools to come up with a result. but Natural language can have you provide the desired end result and work down to fine details.

[taberiand]

I've had the same experience (near exact same it seems, with writing bash scripts) - using it as an iterative guided tool provides a bright light to follow along an otherwise uncertain path, when you know where you want to go but not exactly how to get there, yet you've got enough experience to know when you're going off track.

[onion2k]

and learned the syntax for sed etc,

Did you actually learn it though, enough so you understand it and can recall it? If you did then next time you need a bash script you'll be able to quickly figure out the basics of it, or at least Google for something and modify it with your new knlwledge. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that you won't do that and you'll just use GPT again instead. And next time you might not bother asking it to explain everything...

That's not a criticism of you or of GPT. You have an awesome new tool that magically writes things for you. The most efficient way to use it is to let it do its magic and move on with more important things. All I'm suggesting is that most people, given such a tool, will use it and not learn from it.

[ramones13]

Talking about “actually” learning something feels very “no true Scotsman”. You could replace GPT in your comment with StackOverflow, Google, or a textbook and they’d read like the same criticism, right? Referencing something until you remember it is normal learning?

[onion2k]

Yeah, that's a fair comment. I took "learned" to mean more than maybe the OP meant it to be. I stand by my broader point though - most people will use GPT without using it to expand their knowledge.

[visarga]

Only if it works flawlessly. If it has subtle bugs you spend about as much time solving the task with GPT as if you didn't use GPT. And it requires deep insight into what might go wrong.

[__alias]

Not necessarily, akin to using some other resource like stack overflow, I now know what the command was attempting to achieve and can debug it from there. ChatGPT is actually fantastic for breaking down outputs and explaining what it was trying to do at each part, which can help significantly for getting you to the final result you want

[onion2k]

Only if it works flawlessly.

If their GPT generated code doesn't work they'll use GPT to refine it until it does. People will learn GPT rather than bash.

[Gunnerhead]

Yeah I didn’t understand the criticism especially when they asked if they learned it enough to Google it next time?

[__alias]

Yeah good point, I guess I meant I now know that “sed” is the command I want to use for what I wanted to do, and now a little more experienced with knowing when and how I can use it