[unshavedyak]

I use it (GPT4) to explore ideas. Come up with names, explore domains i'm unfamiliar with, etc - all while assuming everything is wrong and i need to validate everything. Which is basically the same as Google/etc. I just use it as a frontend for Search, generally.

I don't use it to write anything concrete, i have not found it to be good at that. I also use FastGPT (Kagi's GPT) as a .. faster search frontend. FastGPT fails to find stuff frequently but it also is so damn fast it feels faster than me searching+clicking_link+skimming_page.

I also like ChatGPT for exploring APIs which i may not know, but can easily validate. It's wrong often, but when i can validate it's not a big deal, and what i get out of it is the ability to Q&A. I find API documentation frequently frustrating because while i prefer documentation, i frequently don't know how to get to my answer. Documentation often feels like i need to read the entirety of everything before i can reliably get any answer, and frankly i'm impatient. GPT gives me a more interactive exploration of content. It either knows the answer, or can often point me in the direction to find it myself.

All this is to say ChatGPT & friends have not revolutionized my work. Hell during my day job i rarely use it because it's a domain i know well. But i do have the belief that it helps me enough to justify the cost, currently.

[seba_dos1]

Yeah, I can see it being "worth the cost", especially since the cost isn't high. It surely does not "transform" or "revolutionize" the way programmers work though; unless programmers in question were simply thoughtlessly assembling snippets from StackOverflow anyway.