Maybe can be useful if actual humans validate/fix ChatGPT response, but in this case probably better to put effort to fix response directly in ChatGPT.
That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct. There are a whole lot of things in the C API that work but are not correct, such as the gets() function. If I have to do such legwork then it's just as easy to write the code myself.
The utility of AI is proportional to the trust one has in it. Trust is easy to lose and hard to regain. It will take just a few AI mishaps to ruin a product or even an entire industry.
It's an assistant that creates drafts for you. You still need to check them, but usually reading is a lot easier and less time-consuming than writing. I used it a couple of times to compose some long replies email, and it was just fantastic. I had to fix some minor stuff, but I complete the task in less than 5 minutes while without ChatGPT it would take me about 30 minutes.
> That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct.
You have to run/compile it anyway and if you combine it with existing tools (linters, type checkers and so on) you will detect this kind of anomalies very soon.
So, if you are using it as a “personal assistant” and “supervise it” is a big (very big) deal since it's going to save a lot of time.
There are also some unknowns related to the cost/time needed to train and run the infrastructure behind it that could change a lot of things.