Absolutely. The common constant I can see in people who are really blown away by GPT's performance at [task] is that they are bad at [task].
Programmers who describe their job as copying from StackOverflow think it's great at coding. People who don't read fiction think it's great at writing fiction, and so on.
But it's certainly far better than humans who are not skilled at those tasks, and that is what I find to be very impressive. I just didn't realise that these models could be this good, and they're not even as good as they will be.
I guess if you were expecting something that's going to be as good as those who are skilled in a particular field, you'll be unimpressed -- but I wasn't even expecting mediocrity.
I'm saying that most people I see who are impressed by it for any given task are people who are not well-equipped to judge performance on that task.
Programming is generally not hard. Producing 5x - 10x as much programming output at the same quality is quite hard. And keeping the most interesting 10% for yourself while offloading the 90% that is basically just typing? That’s what people are excited about.