5 ms·
Youre commenting on an article where the answer was not even just a little wrong - it was completely wrong. Sometimes it’s “in the ballpark” - which is apparent
by roperj 4y ago
Youre commenting on an article where the answer was not even just a little wrong - it was completely wrong. Sometimes it’s “in the ballpark” - which is apparently t good enough these days - but often times it is just confidently entirely correct. How are you able to use such a tool as you propose practically?
- ahelwer 4y agoI could easily imagine an ordinary person giving this exact same wrong answer (confusing Hobbes and Locke) - we're talking about value-over-replacement here! In the process of learning things we take in wrong information all the time. A lot of it is even intentionally wrong, in the sense of being simplified. These are rarely large obstacles to true understanding. Sometimes they're even beneficial, as correcting prior beliefs can drive home the more accurate belief with greater force.
- jcranmer 4y agoIf this were a test question, the response given would be marked wrong, likely with no partial credit awarded. It's that egregiously wrong, even if the attribution is perhaps understandable.
- ahelwer 4y agoWell thankfully I haven't been in school for over a decade at this point, so rarely (never?) encounter these hard-cutoff no-second-chances trivia situations. I operate in the real world, where continually making something that's not-quite-correct then refining it and fixing the errors is how basically everything is accomplished.
- roperj 4y ago> not-quite-correct then refining it and fixing the errors is how basically everything is accomplished. Not-quite-correct is a wordy misrepresentation when something is plainly incorrect. In many fields being confidently wrong is how you get fucked over hard. That ChatGPT will gleefully fabricate references like a schizophrenic is just more icing on this shit cake.
- jcranmer 4y ago> I operate in the real world, where continually making something that's not-quite-correct then refining it and fixing the errors is how basically everything is accomplished. This isn't really not-quite-correct; it's egregiously wrong in the central aspect of the thesis. Refining and fixing it requires understanding that, and how, it's wrong--and if you have that level of knowledge, why are you using a tool to write this kind of thing? It's not going to save you much time from actually writing the whole thing yourself.
- appletrotter 4y agoYou can correct the bot. If you tell it that a fact it has wrong is wrong, you can get it to change its answer. Also, you can just make tweaks manually. Seems super useful to me as long as you understand the limitations. Trust it the right it amount - don't trust it too much, and you're golden.
- adamsmith143 4y agoNot clear that context goes further than your individual conversation, in fact it almost certainly doesn't.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> If this were a test question, the response given would be marked wrong, likely with no partial credit awarded. Probably. So, don't use ChatGPT unsupervised to take tests.
- adamsmith143 4y agoHow can you use it anywhere? If you need to know enough about a subject to judge whether an answer it gives is correct why would you need it in the first place?
- dragonwriter 4y agoEndeavours in which someone getd benefits in throughput by working with less skilled collaborators whose work they supervise, review, and send back with comments for rework when it is flawed are...not uncommon.
- adamsmith143 4y agoI think the problem is assuming GPTChat is a reliable source at all. You can probably assume your median coworker knows something correct about embedded systems but it's not clear why you would assume or if you should ever assume ChatGPT is correct about anything.