calderknight

Yeah, if going that route the answer to the OP is "most people aren't using it for Lisp".

Mystery solved! The answer to your OP is that the reason anyone can trust ChatGPT for code is that they use a much better model than the one you're using! GPT-3.5 is ancient and way behind GPT-4. In fact, there are now tens of organisations who have developed model classes way ahead of GPT-3.5.

ChatGPT is just the brand. I guess you're using GPT-4, but if you're using the default model (GPT-3.5) that would certainly explain below-expectation results.

That's something you can easily prompt for, too.

What model were you using? What prompt did you use?

You can learn to trust it for some tasks that it's reliably good at.

But for the most part, you don't trust it - you read through it and check it.

Why not?

leagues ahead of gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09

A USA made product

To be clear, the best available version of Gemini has barely caught up with what OpenAI released over a year ago.

Google's a year behind. They haven't really caught up.

I don't think there's a contradiction between being something that just generates text and being something that does have thought processes and intention.

Not logical. It doesn't follow from the assumption that the host would not pose the question "Hey, here's the car, wanna switch?" that the contestant would automatically lose. You could just as well speculate that if the host opened the door to the car the contestant would automatically win the car.

You can imagine factors other than his personality, but they're all equally as speculative. Additional rules to the game, for example.

If the format of the game allows him to show the car to the player, how could his personality not enter into it? In every case where the player picks a goat-door, the host will be presented the option to either reveal the car or the goat. I mean, one can imagine various complicated scenarios in which the host might reveal the car exactly 50% of the time in such cases, but none seem like they can be reasonably arrived at.

I don't think your interpretation of the sentence is sensible. The sentence mentions that the host knows what's behind the doors. So, if he is allowed to open the door with the car, the problem would become insoluble and would just be about speculating on the host's personality. And it definitely doesn't support the conclusion that the probabilities become 50/50.