[seba_dos1]

> that using ChatGPT for simple boilerplate code can be valid

I don't disagree. I just don't see it as "incredibly valuable", it's way too erratic for that. When it works well it does help, but it works well in such a small minority of software developer's tasks that its impact is pretty much negligible overall - and what I meant to point out is that this is an opinion coming from someone who does find it useful in certain cases.

It makes it a bit easier for me to not get distracted by my web browser, sometimes. It does not change my quality of life as a programmer at all. It would be probably more valuable to delegate these tasks to a junior dev in my team if it had one - the junior would learn from that experience and get closer to becoming a senior, ChatGPT won't.

[peterangular]

> I don't disagree. I just don't see it as "incredibly valuable"

Lol - that is by definition disagreeing with the first sentence that I said in our conversation. You disagree that it is "incredibly valuable" and have spent every comment saying that the overall impact of ChatGPT for developers is "negligible overall."

You do disagree with me... and that's OK =)

[seba_dos1]

Have you read what you're replying to? I said that I don't disagree "that using ChatGPT for simple boilerplate code can be valid". It's a completely different thing than what you're implying.

We're commenting under an article that talks about how ChatGPT supposedly makes most of human's skills worthless. Similar sentiment can be seen in many places when it comes to programming. It can't do that if all it helps with are some trivial snippets sometimes. It's helpful for getting boilerplate going, but getting help with boilerplate has negligible effect on programmer's work.

[peterangular]

> Have you read what you're replying to?

Yes. I find it sorta offensive that you assume otherwise.

---

Let's boil this down. I said "the boilerplate ChatGPT provides me is incredibly valuable," and further elaborated that using the tool is "valid."

You disagree with "incredibly valuable" but "don't disagree" with the tool being "valid."

So - I'm saying. We disagree that boilerplate output from ChatGPT is "incredibly valuable" and frankly that's just gonna be subjective regardless. Let's agree to disagree here. I just find it funny that you say "I don't disagree" then outright disagree with the exact language I used in the first sentence of our conversation regarding the value of this tool.

---

> We're commenting under an article that talks about how ChatGPT supposedly makes most of human's skills worthless. Similar sentiment can be seen in many places when it comes to programming. It can't do that if all it helps with are some trivial snippets sometimes.

And honestly I feel like this is why our communication and conversation is frustrated here. I don't see our conversation as being a proxy for the infinitely complex and complicated "making human skills worthless" conversation... personally, I just wanted to say "I use this tool for X, and personally have found great value in it."