| I do think this is why I sometimes get amazing results, and other times I have to go over a snippet of code so often I just give up and do it myself. It's a matter of how the question was asked in the first place. Knowing that, it makes sense that your prompt should be as specific as possible if you want the results to be as specific as possible. The best results I got was feeding it Lisp code that I wanted translated to C (to compile it). It took very little effort on my part because I described what each of the snippets did separately, and the expectation when combined and used together. Through this, I learned that C doesn't have anything akin to the Lisp's (ATOM). ChatGPT stated clearly that its version of ATOM should only be expected to work in the code it was writing, but might not work as expected if copied out for another use of Lisp's (ATOM). I asked it to give examples of where it wouldn't work, and it gave me an example of a code snippet that used (ATOM) that would not have worked correctly with the snippet that did work correctly with my original purpose. Having said that, I myself learned that working with code function by function with ChatGPT, and being explicit about what you need, gives very good results. Focusing on too many things at one time can derail the whole session. One or two intermingling functions works great though. |