[dinkleberg]

You say that likes writing code doesn’t involve experimentation in general. You can’t trust the code that that Chatgpt gives you, but you also can’t trust the code that even you write until you test it. It is always an iterative process. Why does it matter that some use AI tools as a starting point?

[gabrielgio]

> Why does it matter that some use AI tools as a starting point?

I rather learn (or iterate) using a proper source of information (like a book, a blog post written by someone with actual knowledge, or even with a more experience coleague). At least for me it seems more productive.

[KolenCh]

Try pasting a piece of code you don't understand and ask LLM to explain it to you.

Then try the same and find a human to explain it to you.

Then compare the price (including money and time) and performance of both.

I won't believe you made an objective assessment if your conclusion is that either party is the best solution all the time. The point is right now the number of occasions that AI has better price performance is large enough for it to be generally useful.

[gabrielgio]

> I won't believe you made an objective assessment

Why even ask then?

I have tried to use chatGPT a couple of time and many of those times it was wrong, to a point that if I ever use again I'd definitely double check the output(which makes me not bother using it in the first place).

Cute that some people find it useful, I don't, it has no use for me in the state it is today.

[dizhn]

Either it gives you so much that you never learn anything of use from those iterations or it gives you too little that you might as well write it from scratch (and get better quickly).

[worksonmine]

You can do a lot of irreversible damage with the shell, if you're unsure of how a line will behave don't run it.