Right-- it's only really capable of trivial code and boilerplate, which I usually just copy from one of my older programs, examples in docs, or a highly-ranked recent SO answer. Saves me from having to converse with an expensive chatbot, and I don't have to worry about random hallucinations.

If it's a new, non-trivial algorithm, I enjoy writing it.

▲

BeetleB 3 days ago | parent [-]

For me, it's a lot easier getting the LLM to do it than browsing through multiple SO answers, or even finding some old code of mine.

Oh, and the chatbot is cheap. I pay for API usage. On average I'm paying less than $5 per month.

> and I don't have to worry about random hallucinations.

For boilerplate code, I don't think I've ever had to fix anything. It's always worked the first time. If it didn't, my prompt was at fault.

	▲	Mallowram 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The reason it is code and not glyphs that summarize boilerplated function is to keep the chance for innovation open. Once the code becomes automated to this scale, it indicates the language is dying. AI is simply automated undertaking, not advancement. Look big picture, not small-minded expediency.