...and what is the point of creating stories if your thought hasn't gone into them?
It writes incorrect regular expressions and meaningless makefiles and you have to be an expert to spot some of the mistakes which means you can only be safe about using it if you don't need it that much anyhow.
I don't understand why meaningless makefiles and regular expressions discount all the things gpt gets right. It's obvious the tool is flawed but it's also obvious it gets shit right many many times.
If you haven't worked with an LLM to do creative stuff it's like working with a partner. You can bounce ideas off of it, tell it to make things better. It's not as good as a human obviously but it's good enough that can be used as a literal intelligent writing assistant.
There's this huge biased desire from certain people to dismiss LLMs completely. I don't really understand it and the irony is they call everyone else biases.
Look nobody is saying LLMs are human level sentient beings. It's obvious to everyone that these things are imperfect. The furthest people go in supporting LLMs is saying that it sometimes produces remarkable output and it sometimes produces bad output. That's a balanced view and not biased.
But there's a huge contingent of people saying LLMs are completely useless and produce nothing but garbage. All output is bad and that is unquestionable. This group is real and is extremely biased and you seem to be a member, no offense.
I've used it to craft custom cover letters for jobs I got offers for. I used it to respond to emails, I used it to create stories, I used it to snazz up things that I wrote.
I used it to help me code.
I could use it to respond to you and you'd be none the wiser.
I do agree that you need to review the work. But that does not mean it's useless as the writing it produces can be continuously modified via further queries and often the writing is much more superior than anything I would otherwise produce just with a few flaws here and there.