Each AI is different and they are constantly improving them due to the competition. The example in this post is Copilot which currently I consider the least advanced of the three I use regularly. It is built into Windows so I can use it generally as long as I want to. The others at the free level I tend to hit my usage cap and have to wait for a bit. It actually is VERY good for helping with code. It can speed things up rapidly and write some good code.

I've been trying to do VERY complex code. Designing systems that don't exist anywhere yet, using multi-threading, and many requirements. That's a big beyond it's ability. The code I'd end up with if I could pull it off would likely be 50,000 to 100,000 lines of code at least.

It isn't ready for that.

Using it for some pretty straightforward requirements it actually works well with. It does know how to do the multi-threading and other tasks. If your goal is pretty focused it is likely it can help you a lot. If your goal is super complex with many interleaved parts then it will lose context as some point and start hallucinating.

You need to know enough about what you are doing to be able to read the code and say "this is not right". If you can do that it can shave hours, or days off of your own work load.

I use ChatGPT and GROK mostly when doing the serious coding. They seem to be competing with each other on which can develop the better code. So I use them both and I kind of combine the results myself taking the good from both.

Copilot that was in this chat I have used for code as well but I've kept it pretty basic. It seems to be the AI that provides the most "made up stuff" these days and is the most behind.

They always speak with authority as though they really know what they are talking about even as they are feeding you bullshit.

Depending upon what is involved with your needs you can likely do it.

I tend to write in notepad a big long statement describing in as much detail as I can what my goals are. The more precise you are in a single statement the better it does.

When you try to start of say "I want A" It gives you A. "Now add B"... it gives you B. "Now add C" it will do so eventually you'll say "Now add E" and it will say it does so but will have completely renamed or forgotten things you did together when setting up A so suddenly it is introducing slightly different variable names, etc. If you explain "A, B, C, and D" as much as you can in the initial question it tends to do much better. For a lot of things you won't actually need to do much tweaking if your description was pretty good.

I'd say give it a shot.

When I say the tasks I am doing are huge and involved I could give examples that'd explain it. In my cases I'm always trying to do something I haven't found any examples of people doing it before.

If I can pull any of them off the way I want they will help me and some of them may even be worth selling to other developers.

I am currently working on a TileSystem that enables combination of prefabs as tiles, traditional terrains, shapes with varied texturing and shaders, support for cube, marching cube, and dual contouring voxel systems, all unified into a single system that makes them all play together nicely. There is NOTHING out there that does that.

This is just a tool to fix woes I've encountered in my personal needs and desire for level design. It is one piece of bigger projects.

Tons of crazy mesh design stuff, with seam matching, ways to unify the data so it is thread safe, and potentially can be offloaded to the GPU.

AI actually works good briefly when I describe that then falls apart.

So I am breaking it into much smaller chunks. Things I can build with its assistance and then I will keep track of how they all go together without expecting the AI to remember and I will make them work together.