> I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them.
> Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it
I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatGPT : supporters and haters
For technical people who are in coding, we may spend 20 minutes with many suggestions to get the final correct code. We test the code and Check-in into github and we EARNED a part of LIVING for that day (as employee).
Now take non-technical person, he is writing an article. He may spend one hour giving various suggestions to complete the article. At the end the article is OK, but not the best. He can not send it to some magazine or news paper, because it is not THE BEST. So in order have an article to have it accepted, he needs to have his ORIGINAL thinking. So in that sense ChatGPT is not SO helpful for him, for that one hour spent he feel ChatGPT is a Conman.
The point I am trying to make: for ChatGPT to be useful for a Technical person with a piece of code, ChatGPT does not have to be ORIGINAL thinker and produce the BEST, it can be average and It has existing template( previous code which workd), all it need to figure out is how to get to that existing solution.
I gave my ABOVE answer text to ChatGPT and asked to refine my idea, this is what it produced.
-------
There are two distinct groups of opinions regarding the usefulness of ChatGPT: supporters and detractors. These differing perspectives stem from the varying needs and expectations of individuals in different professions.
For technical individuals, such as coders, the process of finding the correct solution to a problem can take a considerable amount of time. ChatGPT can be extremely helpful in streamlining this process by suggesting code snippets that have worked in the past, reducing the time spent on trial and error. In this sense, ChatGPT does not have to be an original thinker or produce the absolute best solution, as long as it helps the coder to reach a workable solution efficiently.
However, for non-technical individuals, such as writers, the focus is often on originality and creativity. ChatGPT may not be as helpful in this context because it is limited to suggesting based on pre-existing templates and previous examples. A writer who spends an hour relying on ChatGPT's suggestions may not end up with the best possible article, which could result in a feeling of dissatisfaction. In this scenario, the writer may feel that ChatGPT is not truly helping them to reach their full potential, leading them to view it as a hindrance rather than a help.
In conclusion, the usefulness of ChatGPT is dependent on the individual's specific needs and expectations. For those in technical fields, it can be a valuable tool, while for those in more creative professions, its limitations may outweigh its benefits.
It dosent goes against what you said but chatGPT is also usefull in nontechical domains
I asked it if it could help with my anxiety regarding to my first therapy session it gave me an actionable 6 steps plan to help me reduce my anxiety by actively preparing for that dreaded first session. Not only I am less stressed about that session but I am also a lot more prepared and likely to benefit from it.
If it was available purely offline I would probably replace the therapy with chatGPT entirely, but I dont trust the great AI in the cloud, it whit something I would not share in a forum so no robot psychotherapist for me, not yet at least ...
Probably more dependent on the quality required than the domain. GPT code to check into simple CRUD app X? Sure. GPT code to augment the Linux kernel? Maybe not.
> Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it
I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatGPT : supporters and haters
For technical people who are in coding, we may spend 20 minutes with many suggestions to get the final correct code. We test the code and Check-in into github and we EARNED a part of LIVING for that day (as employee).
Now take non-technical person, he is writing an article. He may spend one hour giving various suggestions to complete the article. At the end the article is OK, but not the best. He can not send it to some magazine or news paper, because it is not THE BEST. So in order have an article to have it accepted, he needs to have his ORIGINAL thinking. So in that sense ChatGPT is not SO helpful for him, for that one hour spent he feel ChatGPT is a Conman.
The point I am trying to make: for ChatGPT to be useful for a Technical person with a piece of code, ChatGPT does not have to be ORIGINAL thinker and produce the BEST, it can be average and It has existing template( previous code which workd), all it need to figure out is how to get to that existing solution.