ChatGPT 5.2 in Real Developer Workflows: A Mixed Review

Introduction

With many companies releasing increasingly capable AI models, choosing a single “best” option is no longer straightforward. While OpenAI’s models once set the standard, the landscape is now crowded with strong alternatives. OpenAI positions GPT-5.2 as its most capable professional model, citing strong benchmark results and significant speed advantages over human experts.

However, benchmarks only tell part of the story. Self-reported results often emphasize peak performance while downplaying weaknesses that matter in real development work. Based on our experience, it’s essential to test models on real tasks before fully adopting them.

To that end, we evaluated GPT-5.2 on three practical coding scenarios in our own ecosystem: project scaffolding, debugging, and feature implementation, all in Python. The outcome was mixed. In the sections below, we summarize where GPT-5.2 performed well and where it fell short, grounding our observations in concrete examples and context.

Project Scaffolding

Project scaffolding was an area where GPT-5.2 clearly stood out. We tested two scenarios to evaluate how well it could generate a project foundation with minimal guidance.

• Simple Game: For a straightforward game with clear requirements, GPT-5.2 performed exceptionally well. Across multiple runs, it consistently produced a working game that matched our specifications, with only minor variations. The repeated consistency suggested a high level of reliability for well-defined, common tasks.
• Complex Fall-Detection Package: We then moved to a much more involved case: scaffolding a kinematics-based Python package for fall detection, complete with modules, tests, and CI setup. The initial output was a solid starting point but required several iterations to fully align with our intended architecture. Despite this, the first draft was already close to our design, and each follow-up prompt meaningfully improved the structure.

Overall, we consider the scaffolding results a success. Even with iterative refinement for the complex case, GPT-5.2 saved substantial time by generating boilerplate code, configuration files, and an initial project layout. Instead of starting from scratch, we were able to focus on refinement, likely saving days of engineering effort and validating GPT-5.2’s strength in handling multi-step project setup tasks.

Want to see GPT-5.2 in action? Subscribe to our blog to play the game it built and explore the code behind it.

Debugging Ability

While GPT-5.2 excelled at scaffolding, its performance in debugging was far more frustrating. We tested it on a real-world issue in a custom video pipeline where GPU-accelerated encoding and decoding were expected but the system kept falling back to software codecs, severely hurting performance. The system streams raw video tensors over the network using a tunnel-style compression scheme, with the design assumption that GPU hardware encoding runs on the client and GPU decoding on the server.

The real root cause turned out to be a fundamental limitation of PyAV. Our pipeline relied on PyAV, a Python binding around FFmpeg, under the assumption that it could support GPU-accelerated decoding. In reality, PyAV explicitly does not provide native hardware decoding in the way required for our use case. This is a deliberate design choice. For many workloads, the overhead of transferring decoded frames from GPU memory back to system memory eliminates the performance gains. Our scenario was true real-time, GPU-to-GPU processing, an edge case where that limitation was fatal.

Compounding the issue, any workaround would have required distributing custom-built FFmpeg binaries with GPU support to all clients, making the approach impractical. This made our original architecture unsuitable. GPT-5.2 failed to identify this and instead tried to patch around the problem, only implementing the proper alternative after we explicitly explained PyAV’s limitation and pushed it to consider a different tool.

Ultimately, the fix came from our own investigation, not the AI. By switching to NVIDIA’s PyNvVideoCodec, a library purpose-built for GPU-accelerated video encoding and decoding. Ultimately resolving the performance issue, enabling true hardware acceleration end to end.

The model’s responses were technically confident but largely incorrect. GPT-5.2 reasoned through the pipeline step by step, yet repeatedly hallucinated configuration flags, misattributed FFmpeg and PyAV behaviors, and suggested changes that were invalid in context. Instead of isolating the root cause, it attempted to “patch” the existing design, proposing workarounds that added complexity without addressing the bottleneck.

One especially telling suggestion was to dynamically segment frames into short MP4 chunks to “force” hardware decode, a solution that increased latency astronomically and still failed to bypass PyAV’s fundamental limitations. This reflected a lack of deep, domain-specific understanding of video pipelines and GPU memory semantics.

The key lesson from this exercise is that GPT-5.2 is not reliable for diagnosing deep architectural or domain-specific bugs. While it can be helpful for surface-level debugging and generic code issues, it struggles when the correct solution involves rejecting an initial design choice or swapping out an entire framework. The model also showed strong contextual inertia once a library or approach is established in the prompt, it tends to optimize within that box rather than question whether the box itself is wrong. For complex systems, especially those involving specialized tooling like video codecs and GPU pipelines, human expertise and independent research remain essential.

Feature Implementation

Our final test asked GPT-5.2 to implement a new feature inside an existing codebase a harder problem than greenfield scaffolding because correctness depends on integration details, conventions, and hidden coupling. We selected a “medium-sized” task: something that spans multiple layers but is still well-scoped, like adding a new API endpoint that triggers business logic, touches persistence, and returns a structured response. We gave GPT-5.2 a detailed spec plus representative code snippets (models, existing endpoints, shared utilities, patterns) so it could mirror our project style.

What GPT-5.2 got right: it behaved like a high-throughput code generator with decent architectural instincts. The first draft typically included:

• route registration / controller wiring,
• a new handler with the requested flow and validation,
• helper logic for data shaping or aggregation,
• and even a unit test skeleton consistent with our existing test patterns.

This was valuable because it handled the repetitive “glue” work that usually eats time: copying patterns, setting up boilerplate, and expanding a spec into multi-file changes. The code generally matched our formatting and conventions because it inferred them from the context we provided.

Where it fell apart: integration accuracy. The model doesn’t actually possess the whole codebase; it reconstructs plausible code from partial context. That showed up in subtle but costly ways:

• It referenced utilities that looked like they should exist (naming-convention hallucinations), but didn’t.
• It misused internal data structures because it only saw fragments of our custom types.
• It introduced small mismatches (types, fields, error handling expectations) that weren’t obvious in a read-through but failed at runtime or in tests.

The net effect was a familiar pattern: ~80% correct, ~20% wrong in ways that only execution reveals. This is exactly the danger zone close enough to appear “done,” but wrong enough to burn time chasing failures.

Iteration behavior: once we fed back concrete errors (“function X doesn’t exist; we use Y”, “type mismatch here”, “this throws in this path”), GPT-5.2 was usually good at producing targeted patches. After a couple rounds, the feature was stable and test-passing. So the model wasn’t useless at debugging its own output it just needed ground truth feedback to converge.

Verdict: qualified success. GPT-5.2 can accelerate medium-scope feature work by rapidly producing coherent multi-file diffs and boilerplate, especially when the feature follows existing patterns. But it’s not “drop-in shipping code” for anything non-trivial: the last-mile integration correct utilities, exact types, real invariants still requires a developer to review, run, and fix. Practically, it felt like pairing with a fast junior engineer: high output, good structure, but needs supervision to align with the actual system reality.

Conclusion

Our hands-on tests of GPT-5.2 showed a clear tradeoff: it’s a huge productivity boost for scaffolding and medium-sized feature work, often producing solid multi-file starting points in minutes and removing a lot of boilerplate grind. For well-defined tasks, it genuinely feels like a force multiplier.

But it still requires active supervision. We hit the usual failure modes, hallucinated details, brittle reasoning on messy real-world bugs, and weak global awareness of an existing system. Debugging in particular proved that strong benchmarks don’t guarantee the model will identify architectural root causes or know when the right move is to change tools entirely. Even feature work needed careful review, testing, and iterative correction before it was shippable.

The practical takeaway: use GPT-5.2 as an accelerator, not an autopilot. Let it generate structure and draft implementations, but verify everything in your environment and keep a human in the loop. The model’s metrics are impressive, yet they only tell part of the story, what matters is performance on your code base, constraints, and edge cases. We’re optimistic and will keep using it, but today a smooth landing still needs a human pilot.