Not just new code-bases. I recently used an LLM to accelerate my learning of Rust.

Coming from other programming languages, I had a lot of questions that would be tough to nail down in a Google search, or combing through docs and/or tutorials. In retrospect, it's super fast at finding answers to things that _don't exist_ explicitly, or are implied through the lack of documentation, or exist at the intersection of wildly different resources:

- Can I get compile-time type information of Enum values?

- Can I specialize a generic function/type based on Enum values?

- How can I use macros to reflect on struct fields?

- Can I use an enum without its enclosing namespace, as I can in C++?

- Does rust have a 'with' clause?

- How do I avoid declaring timelines on my types?

- What is an idiomatic way to implement the Strategy pattern?

- What is an idiomatic way to return a closure from a function?

...and so on. This "conversation" happened here and there over the period of two weeks. Not only was ChatGPT up to the task, but it was able to suggest what technologies would get me close to the mark if Rust wasn't built to do what I had in mind. I'm now much more comfortable and competent in the language, but miles ahead of where I would have been without it.

For really basic syntax stuff it works, but the moment you ask its advice on anything involving ChatGPT has confidently led me incredibly wrong right-sounding trails.

To their credit, the people on the Rust forum have been really responsive at answering my questions and poking holes in incorrect unsafe implementations, and it is from speaking to them that I truly feel I have learned the language well.