ChatGPT isn’t the best coding LLM. Claude Opus is.
Also as you can always tell if a coding response works empirically mistakes are much more easily spotted than in other forms of LLM output.
Debugging with AI is more important than prompting. It requires an understanding of the intent which allows the human to prompt the model in a way that allows it to recognize its oversights.
Most code errors from LLMs can be fixed by them. The problem is an incomplete understanding of the objective which makes them commit to incorrect paths.
Being able to run code is a huge milestone. I hope the GPT5 generation can do this and thus only deliver working code. That will be a quantum leap.
Also as you can always tell if a coding response works empirically mistakes are much more easily spotted than in other forms of LLM output.
Debugging with AI is more important than prompting. It requires an understanding of the intent which allows the human to prompt the model in a way that allows it to recognize its oversights.
Most code errors from LLMs can be fixed by them. The problem is an incomplete understanding of the objective which makes them commit to incorrect paths.
Being able to run code is a huge milestone. I hope the GPT5 generation can do this and thus only deliver working code. That will be a quantum leap.