It's for this reason that I am skeptical of ChatGPT, which automates the most trivial part of software engineering - writing the code. GPT will not give you understanding, only the textual artifact (and whether or not this artifact is actually the product of some AI "understanding" is unclear).
Me too! I think its wayyy over-hyped. The biggest challenges in software are architecture. Object boundaries. System composition.
And I'm a big believer that all the software we write today is shit. So GPT is just regurgitating bad practices.
I find ChatGPT to be very useful as a source of documentation. I can ask it to summarize a certain scientific topic for me, or how to do a certain thing in the Win32 API. I'm not going to take its output at face value, but it still speeds up the process of figuring out what I should research further, what function to call, etc.
A great, concise summary of the idea I was grasping at. Thank you.
It also describes certain forms of advertising.
I use a ChatGPT-based script using RAG to work with code-bases. I include text documentation included in the repository, descriptions of application and folder conventions in the documentation folder, and file paths for source information in the augmented prompt. The documentation it creates is nearly as good as my own and I feed the output back into the documentation folder for even better understanding of the application.
I am working on an effective prompt to enforce overall implementation style and approach. ChatGPT strays toward system-agnostic and lower-level abstractions instead of application conventions. Conventions at a higher level of abstraction are a subtle but important aspect of the application theory.
The Future of Coding podcast also had an episode on it: https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/061
There are rare papers that are worth investing time. This is one of those.