My favorite is when it gets into some weird context loop, apologizes and claims to have corrected an issue, but gives you literally, character-for-character, the same answer it gave before.

Fortunately, it mostly happens to me when I am asking particularly ambiguous or weird questions -- e.g., asking for any assembly in AT&T/GAS syntax seems to always go wrong, not necessarily in terms of the logic itself, but rather that it ends up mixing Intel and AT&T, or asking explicitly for POSIX-compliant shell often gives weird Bash/GNUisms, presumably since so many StackOverflow posts seem to conflate all shells with Bash and always expect GNU coreutils.

I find it amazing that it can actually sort of run code "in its head", all the code output it does is not actually run through an interpreter but it's still pretty close if not perfect each time. But trying to run code with it is mostly for kicks, rather I asked it to produce a simple API for me and then produce a python script that tests it. it had no bugs and I could check it myself fairly fast; certainly faster than it would've taken me to write all that code without any bugs. I'd have had to check my own code for bugs anyway.

So if you accept that chatGPT is sort of like a guy that looked over millions of programmers shoulders but never actually communicated with any of them to understand the code, it has a perfect memory while not being able to compute much in its head then it can still be a great tool. Just understand its limitations and its advantages. Just because it can't reverse a string in its head doesn't mean it's "dumb" or not useful for everyday tasks.

You could RL learn that when someone specifies a number, the appropriate thing to say is "Ok, 40 asterisks, let's count them, 1, *, 2, *, 3 , *, ..." and then it would indeed produce 40 asterisks. But not as a single string. Because producing them as a single contiguous string requires some offline state/memory/processing, and all the neural network has access to is the last ~page of text.

Embedding the counting process into the text itself kind of embeds the state of the O(N) algorithm in the O(N) text itself, that is, "unrolling the loop" externally.