What a strange article. The bulk of it tells me it isn't helping you...yet you conclude it's changed the way you code?
Maybe, who knows? The author cannot go back and do the task for a second time (only for a third time and beyond). So it's difficult to say how long it would have taken them. Either way, gaining half an hour to an hour of productivity, while great, is certainly well outside the hype that we hear about GPT. Indeed, it's not even consistent with the headline, "GPT4 writes Stan code so I don't have to".
I'm pushing against what I see as unwarranted hype. We're hearing breathless reports by both clueless journalists and by seasoned professionals who are using these tools from the perspective of someone with years of experience, who are then extrapolating that experience out across the spectrum of all possible users. My point is that, if the Stan code example required so much hand-holding, then it's not really helping anyone who hasn't already done it before.
This is not an anomaly, indeed, when you ask GPT4 to produce code for non-trivial examples, you need to already have the expertise in that domain to evaluate whether that output is correct, efficient, and error-free.
He gained more than that. what he was saying was that no experience might have made the ordeal 3 or 3 and a half hours instead, still a good deal less than the time he originally spent.
>I'm pushing against what I see as unwarranted hype.
You are hardly equipped to say what is and isn't unwarranted hype for anybody but yourself. It's rather obnoxious to try and impose whatever you think on people giving their personal experiences. No one asked you to pushback on anything so don't. If it's not as useful as you say, then it'll become readily apparent.
>We're hearing breathless reports by both clueless journalists and by seasoned professionals who are using these tools from the perspective of someone with years of experience
There are many giving similar reports without any/little experience at all.
>you ask GPT4 to produce code for non-trivial examples, you need to already have the expertise in that domain to evaluate whether that output is correct, efficient, and error-free.
No you don't. Code is code. It runs as intended or it doesn't and it's extremely easy to see if it runs as intended.
It's more useful if you have experience certainly but that's it.