When ChatGPT appeared at the end of November, I tried it with the same caution I bring to most new tools. I was curious, but I did not want to confuse a good demo with a dependable development workflow. Developer tools are full of things that look impressive for ten minutes and then become less useful once real project constraints appear.
The first thing that felt genuinely useful was not code generation on its own. It was the speed of getting a starting point for something I already understood. I could describe a small JavaScript problem, ask for an example, then use that output as something to review, challenge and adjust. That is different from trusting it blindly. The value was in reducing the blank page, not removing the need to think.
Starting With Small Tasks
I began with small development tasks because they are easier to judge. A utility function, a regular expression, a draft of a WordPress hook or a short explanation of a browser API. If the answer was wrong, I could usually see why. That made the tool safer to explore because I was not asking it to own a whole project decision.
For example, asking for a simple event delegation pattern can produce something useful quickly. The important part is what happens next. I still need to check whether it handles missing elements, whether it creates accessibility problems and whether it fits the way the project is structured. ChatGPT can produce the first version, but it cannot understand the full context of a codebase unless I provide it, and even then I need to verify the result.
Where It Helped With Writing And Explanation
The more surprising use was explanation. Sometimes I know what I want to build, but I need to explain it to a client, project manager or another developer in a clearer way. ChatGPT was useful for turning a rough technical idea into a first draft. I would not publish that draft unchanged, but it helped me get to the useful version faster.
That matters because development work often involves communication as much as implementation. A good technical decision still needs to be explained. If a tool helps me draft the explanation, I can spend more time making sure the decision itself is sound.
I also found it useful for comparing approaches. Not because I expected it to choose the right one for me, but because it could list considerations I might want to review. That can be helpful when planning a small feature or writing documentation around an internal process.
Where I Would Not Trust It
I would not trust it with security-sensitive code without review, and I would not use it as a replacement for documentation. If I need to know exactly how a WordPress function behaves, I still want the official documentation. If I am changing authentication, payments, permissions or data handling, I want proper review and testing. A convincing answer is not the same as a correct answer.
That is probably the most important boundary. ChatGPT can sound confident even when it is missing context. In development, missing context is where bugs live. The project has existing patterns, dependencies, hosting constraints, performance requirements and user behaviour that a general answer will not automatically understand.
Retrospective Thoughts
My early view is that ChatGPT is useful when I treat it like a fast assistant, not an authority. It can draft, suggest, summarise and help me explore options. It can also be wrong, incomplete or too generic. That means the responsibility stays with the developer.
I can see it becoming part of my workflow for notes, first drafts, small examples and technical exploration. I cannot see it replacing the need to understand what I am building. If anything, it makes understanding more important because the faster a tool can produce code, the more important it becomes to know whether that code belongs in the project.