This.

I'm not good at prompting (if I believe what others say they can do with ChatGPT), but that's one thing that bother me with this system. They will do anything you ask them to without questioning it (in the limit given by their creators).

Is it possible to set it up in a way that they will challenge you instead of blindly doing what you ask? In this particular case, is it possible to ask it to do a code review in addition to performing the task?

I've tried various time (with the v3.5) to "tune" it so that each answer will follow a specific format, with links and recommended resources, with several alternatives, etc. The goal is to have it to broad my perspectives as opposed to focus too much on what I'm asking. But it never worked for more than a couple of questions.

Are there ways to do that? What am I doing wrong?

In some cases you can ask about a particular function "Is this the best way to do this" or "Is there a better way to do this"

Sort of. There's an input variable that adjusts the "creativity" of the LLM. If you adjust the variable the answers become more and more "creative" approaching the point where it can challenge you. But of course this comes at a cost.

As it stands right now, chatGPT can actually challenge you.

I simply asked it to make it unit testable and it did the task 100 percent.

I'm not sure where your side track is coming from. Who in their right mind would ever check in code that prints a range of numbers from 0 to x?

The example wasn't about writing good code or realistic code. It's about an LLM knowing and understanding what I asked it to do. It did this by literally creating a correct answer that doesn't exist. Sorry it doesn't satisfy your code quality standards but that's not part of the task is it? Why don't you ask it to make the code quality better? It can likely do it Maybe that will stop the subtle insults (please don't subtly imply I'm incompetent that's fucking rude)

Like why even get into code quality about some toy example? What's the objective? To fulfill some agenda against AI? I think that's literally a lot of what's going on in this thread.

> Like why even get into code quality about some toy example? What's the objective?

it was your example

plus: toy examples are all it really does

Yeah. Why did you get pedantic, rude and heated about the code quality for my toy example?

It's my example sure, but it's your reaction to it that makes no sense.

plus: that's not true.

unless you're literally an LLM, I was not pedantic, heated or rude towards you

(and it is true I'm afraid)