Which Is Better at Coding? ChatGPT or Copilot Pro For Programming Comparison

This video transcript explores the comparison between Chat GBT and Copilot for coding, focusing on which platform is superior for programming tasks. The author emphasizes the importance of custom instructions in Chat GBT, which allows for a more tailored and efficient coding experience. By setting specific variables and preferences, Chat GBT can provide step-by-step instructions and avoid assumptions about installed packages or completed steps. The video demonstrates how both platforms respond to the same coding prompts and image inputs, highlighting Chat GBT's ability to handle more context and generate more structured code. The author concludes that for coding purposes, Chat GBT is the preferred choice due to its customizability and output quality, while acknowledging Copilot's strengths in other contexts such as Microsoft 365 App Suite.

Takeaways

• 🤖 Custom instructions are crucial for Chat GBT (Chat GPT), allowing for more precise and efficient coding assistance.
• 📝 Chat GBT can handle more context length in its outputs, which is beneficial for complex coding tasks.
• 🚀 Chat GBT allows users to upload files for analysis, which can be a significant advantage over Co-Pilot.
• 📱 Co-Pilot has a context window limit of 4,000 characters, which can be restrictive for coding purposes.
• 💡 Co-Pilot is more suitable for leveraging in the Microsoft 365 App Suite rather than for coding.
• 🔍 Chat GBT can read and understand uploaded images, providing relevant code based on visual prompts.
• 🛠️ Co-Pilot's output structure may not be as organized or user-friendly as Chat GBT's, especially for beginners.
• 📈 Chat GBT's ability to standardize chats through custom instructions can prevent repetitive and annoying queries.
• 📚 For coding purposes, the video suggests that Chat GBT is a better investment of $20 compared to Co-Pilot.
• 🔗 Co-Pilot might offer more options, but for coding, Chat GBT's focused approach is more advantageous.
• 🎓 Chat GBT can be particularly helpful for students or those new to coding, providing quick logic assistance and reducing frustration.

Q & A

Which platforms are being compared for coding in the video?

The video compares Chat GBT (ChatGPT) and Copilot Pro for their capabilities in coding.

What is the main advantage of Chat GBT mentioned in the video?

The main advantage of Chat GBT is its ability to use custom instructions, which allows for a more tailored and efficient coding experience.

How does the video demonstrate the use of custom instructions in Chat GBT?

The video demonstrates by showing how to set up custom instructions in the user's profile, which includes specifying the development environment, front-end and back-end technologies, and styling preferences.

What is the context window limit for Copilot when it comes to coding?

The context window limit for Copilot in coding is 4,000 characters, which may not be sufficient for complex coding tasks.

What is the issue with Copilot when it comes to handling images and files?

Copilot can only handle images within the chat, whereas Chat GBT can handle files, allowing for the attachment of entire JS or CSS files for more intuitive code generation and insights.

What is the video creator's recommendation for coding?

The video creator recommends using Chat GBT for coding due to its custom instructions feature and better handling of context length and file attachments.

How does the video address the issue of assumptions made by Chat GBT?

The video suggests using custom instructions to avoid assumptions about installed packages or completed steps, which can be a source of frustration for both new and experienced coders.

What is the significance of the 'one-sentence summary' in custom instructions?

The 'one-sentence summary' in custom instructions helps to clearly define the main goal of the chat, ensuring that the output is focused and relevant to the task at hand.

How does the video compare the structuring of code outputs between Chat GBT and Copilot?

The video shows that Chat GBT provides a more structured and block-like code output, which is preferred by the video creator, while Copilot's output is less structured and more difficult to navigate.

What is the video creator's opinion on using these platforms for non-coding tasks?

The video creator acknowledges that Copilot has value in the context of leveraging the Microsoft 365 App Suite for non-coding tasks, but for coding, Chat GBT is the preferred choice.

What is the final verdict of the video regarding which platform to use for coding?

The final verdict is that Chat GBT is the better choice for coding due to its custom instructions, ability to handle more context, and better file handling capabilities.

Outlines

00:00

🤖 Custom Instructions for Coding with Chad GBT

The first paragraph introduces the topic of comparing Chad GBT and Co-pilot for coding purposes. The speaker emphasizes the importance of custom instructions in Chad GBT, which allows for a more tailored and efficient coding experience. It discusses how to set up custom instructions to standardize interactions and avoid repetitive information. The paragraph also highlights the ability of Chad GBT to understand and work with specific software and frameworks, and the importance of not making assumptions about installed packages or completed steps. The speaker concludes by stating a preference for Chad GBT in the context of coding due to its customizability and efficiency.

05:03

📊 Comparing Code Generation: Chad GBT vs. Co-pilot

The second paragraph delves into a practical comparison between Chad GBT and Co-pilot by using them to generate code based on a provided image of a dashboard. The speaker notes the structural differences in the code outputs, with Chad GBT producing more contextually rich and structured code. It also points out the limitations of Co-pilot's context window and the inconvenience of having to reiterate backend and frontend details for every new chat. The paragraph further discusses the ability of Chad GBT to handle longer dictations and piece together code based on multiple requests. The speaker expresses a clear preference for Chad GBT for coding tasks due to its superior output quality and handling of context.

10:04

💡 Choosing the Right Tool for Learning to Code

The third paragraph wraps up the discussion by advising viewers on the best tool for learning to code. The speaker strongly recommends Chad GBT for coding purposes, citing its effectiveness and the power of custom instructions. It also suggests that while Co-pilot has its merits in other contexts, such as working with Microsoft Office applications, Chad GBT is more suitable for coding tasks. The paragraph concludes with an encouragement to use custom instructions to their full potential and a reminder to subscribe for more content on leveraging GBTs effectively.

Keywords

Coding

Coding is the process of writing instructions in a programming language that a computer can understand and execute. In the context of the video, it refers to the act of writing software applications using programming languages. The video compares two platforms, Chat GBT and Copilot, in terms of their effectiveness and ease of use for coding.

Chat GBT

Chat GBT, presumably a reference to a coding assistance tool, is mentioned as one of the platforms being compared in the video. It is highlighted for its ability to understand custom instructions, which can enhance the coding experience by reducing repetitive questions and standardizing the interaction.

Copilot

Copilot is another platform being compared for coding assistance. It is noted for having many options, but the video suggests that it might not be as effective as Chat GBT for coding due to its limitations in context length and structure.

Custom Instructions

Custom instructions are a feature that allows users to provide specific guidelines to the coding assistance tool. In the video, it is shown that setting custom instructions can significantly improve the efficiency of Chat GBT by avoiding assumptions and tailoring the responses to the user's specific coding environment and preferences.

Front End

The front end refers to the part of a software application that users interact with. In the video, the front end is discussed in the context of generating code for a user interface based on an image provided, which is a task that both Chat GBT and Copilot are asked to perform.

Back End

The back end is the server-side of an application, responsible for processing and responding to the front end's requests. It is mentioned in the context of the video when discussing the technologies used in the coding process, with Firebase being specified as the back-end technology.

React

React is a popular JavaScript library for building user interfaces, particularly for single-page applications. In the video, React is identified as the front-end technology being used for the coding project that the user is working on.

Firebase

Firebase is a platform developed by Google for creating mobile and web applications. It provides a real-time database, authentication, and other services. In the video, Firebase is mentioned as the back-end service being utilized for the coding project.

Context Length

Context length refers to the amount of previous text or information that a tool can consider when generating a response. The video points out that Copilot has a context length limitation, which may affect its ability to generate code based on longer or more complex instructions.

Visual Studio Code

Visual Studio Code is a source-code editor developed by Microsoft. It is mentioned in the video as the integrated development environment (IDE) that the user is using for their coding project.

MacOS

MacOS, short for Mac Operating System, is the operating system that runs on Apple's Mac computers. In the video, it is stated as the operating system on which the user is developing their application.

Highlights

Comparison between Chat GBT and Copilot for coding purposes.

Custom instructions can be added to Chat GBT to improve coding efficiency.

Chat GBT allows for more context length in outputs, which is beneficial for coding.

The importance of not making assumptions about installed packages or completed steps in coding.

Chat GBT can handle more complex and lengthy code outputs compared to Copilot.

Copilot's context window limit of 4,000 characters may not be sufficient for complex coding tasks.

Chat GBT can read and process entire JS or CSS files attached to the chat, providing more intuitive code assistance.

Copilot's interface may not be as structured or clear as Chat GBT for coding purposes.

The presenter leans towards Chat GBT for coding due to its customizability and efficiency.

Custom instructions in Chat GBT can standardize chats and reduce repetitive information.

Chat GBT's ability to understand and utilize custom instructions can be a significant advantage over Copilot.

The presenter demonstrates how to create and use custom instructions for Chat GBT in coding.

Chat GBT can generate code based on an image of a dashboard, showcasing its advanced capabilities.

The presenter finds Chat GBT more suitable for coding tasks, despite Copilot's versatility in other applications.

The video provides a detailed comparison of coding outputs from both Chat GBT and Copilot.

The presenter emphasizes the importance of using the right tool for coding to avoid wasting time.

Chat GBT is recommended for those looking to invest in a tool specifically for coding.

The video concludes with a recommendation to use Chat GBT for coding and a guide on how to leverage it effectively.