My experience is not what you indicated. I was talking about evaluating it. That's what I was discussing in my first comment. Seeing how it works and my experience so far has been pretty abysmal. In my coding work (which I don't do a lot since last ~1 year) I have not "moved to it" for help/assistance and the reason is what I have mentioned in these comments. That it has not been reliable at all. By at all I don't mean 100% unreliable of course but not 75-95% either. I mean I ask it 10 doubts questions and It screws up too often for me to fully trust it and requires me to equal or more work in verifying what it does then why not I'd just do it myself or verify from sources that are trust worthy. I don't really know when it's not "lying" so I am always second guessing and spending/wasting my time try to verify it. But how do you factually verify a large body of output that it produced to you as inference/summary/mix? It gets frustrating.

I'd rather try a LLM to whom I through some sources at or refer to them by some kind of ID and ask them to summarise, give me examples based on those (e.g man pages) and they give me just that near 100% accuracy. That will be more productive imho.

> I'd rather try a LLM to whom I through some sources at or refer to them by some kind of ID and ask them to summarise, give me examples based on those (e.g man pages) and they give me just that near 100% accuracy. That will be more productive imho.

That makes sense! Maybe an LLM with web search enabled, or Perplexity, or something like AnythingLM that let's it reference docs you provide, might be more to your taste