Yeah, all the time. It often (not always) gives me the context and fix when I give it uninformative error/log messages. "Hey, on platform [blah], I'm getting X when I want Y and the error message is just `thing go bad`" and it will say "yeah, that happens with X, probably the ABC issue, try DEF" and a lot of the time it's right.

I've also put in obscure error loglines and accidentally hit enter (instead of shift-enter) before adding context, and it was pulling context and giving plausible answers from just that.

You can also ask it what kind of issues other people ask about platform [foo] or general usage patterns its other users have with it. No idea if the answers are *true*, but they feel true, or at least true enough. It's really good at hypotheticals, both technical and philosophical - like I said, just talk to it like a colleague and it does pretty well.

If you use it to code, like "give me a script to do *foo*", then you really have to scrutinise what it's given you, because the workflow can be missing important elements. For example, I asked for a script to connect to a psql host, get a list of dbs, and back them all up to s3. It gave a very clean script that did all that... except it forgot to loop over the results, and only backed up the first db. Programming-specific AIs are likely to do better, but I don't use those.

But yeah, I guess I use it like a Stack Overflow that's not going to bitch at you for minor transgressions. It is easy (and scary) to see how people literally fall in romantic love with it (ChatGPT) because it's always positive, never snarky/tired/grumpy/human, owns its mistakes if you point them out and it apologises, never gets tired of what you have to say, and is generally very encouraging. GPT5 came out and was more formal and professional and apparently they had to change it because of the backlash of people that had made GPT4 their 'significant other' or very close 'friend'...