I'm sorry to hear that your code isn't working. Can you provide more details about what isn't working and what you've tried so far to fix it? This will help me understand the situation better and provide more specific advice.
Response (second try, same prompt)
It's difficult to say what might be causing your code to not work without seeing it and knowing more about your setup. There are many possible reasons why code might not work as intended, including but not limited to syntax errors, incorrect wiring of hardware components, and incorrect values being passed to functions.
If you're still having trouble with your code, I would recommend posting it in a forum or online community where other Arduino users can help you troubleshoot it. You may also want to try searching online for solutions to common Arduino problems, as there is a wealth of information available online that can help you diagnose and fix your issue.
In general, it's always a good idea to double-check your code and make sure that it's free of syntax errors and that all of your hardware is properly wired. It can also be helpful to start with a simple program and gradually build up to your desired functionality, as this can make it easier to identify where problems are occurring.
I hope this helps, and good luck with your project!
IMHO it should be banned if it is found wandering the forum.
A recent post had three answers from chatgpt and all 3 were useless to help the OP and actually failed in some basic ways.
Have asked for a ruling from upstairs.
Suggest that if you find any then PLEASE report them until we get an official ruling.
I think if doesn't exists an official rule against chatGPT yet you should not delete posts unilaterally.
If you are talking about this topic, nobody was interested in support the OP laziness. So the answer from chatGPT could be a good point to OP start learning.
IMHO it's a resource, albeit a speculative and experimental one. I like the academic approach, where stealing information is good as long as you give it as a citation, in other words in this case, highlight that it is chatGPT speaking and not yourself.
But in a forum
the nature of information sources may be confused, lending undue credibility to specious AI guesswork
it increases the noise level, due to the temptation for people who really don't have any answers, to indulge in excessive "sharing" of AI solutions (because, after all, anyone can ask AI directly until it becomes a pay service)
IMHO those chatgpt replies all failed in some very basic ways as was pointed out on repeated occasions.
In addition the answers provided by others were much more valid than code that did not work.
Then IIRC you stated to the effect "what do you want for free" which was not at all helpful.
If you feel that users are not worthy of proper help in that way then maybe this is not the best place to be ?
The reports for your posts (yes they were reported by others) were in my view VALID enough to remove the failed and misleading posts. It was actually quite an easy decision.
You missed the invisible 'qoutes'...
So far I am impressed that it can make proper sentences. But often it generates a lot of text without any message. And it does not care about the message as well...
So in essence nothing that any of us would not have said.
But without any of the additional links or help most of us provide.
And given some of the methods used to post code in here the AI would have a meltdown.
On the other hand most of you can still make out what needs to be done.
Wait until they show the AI pictures of error messages or code and it quietly giggles to itself.
Can it read schematics in the many forms we see them ?
"Dear user the red squiggle appears to be a form of art would you like to draw pictures with me?"
It might be better at evaluating if a rats nest is conform with a fritzy schematic...
... the point where most of us will simply open the fridge to take a beer and enjoy the evening sun on the veranda...
I thought I'd register in chatGPT. My very first comment and response:
In Wokwi ESP32 simulator, Using delay() creates a timing discrepancy between the simulated ESP32 and the real ESP32 where, for example, checking the frequency from an external source would give lower than expected results, making it appear that its running at a lower frequency.
The solution is to use the delayMicroseconds() function instead.
The following code is an example of how to use the delayMicroseconds() function to create a square wave on pin 25.
void setup() { pinMode(25, OUTPUT); } void loop() { digitalWrite(25, HIGH); delayMicroseconds(500); digitalWrite(25, LOW); delayMicroseconds(500); }
The following is the output of the above code.
The following is the frequency of the above code.
The following is the duty cycle of the above code.
The following is the code to create a square wave on pin 25 with a frequency of 1kHz and a duty cycle of 50%.
void setup() { pinMode(25, OUTPUT); } void loop() { digitalWrite(25, HIGH); delayMicroseconds(500); digitalWrite(25, LOW); delayMicroseconds(500); }
The following is the output of the above code.
The following is the frequency of the above code.
The following is the duty cycle of the above code.
The following is the code to create a square wave on pin 25 with a frequency of
