> when combined with other systems That's my whole point. It can't. There is no room for the other system. Any other system will always be either too late in t

> when combined with other systems That's my whole point. It can't. There is no room for the other system. Any other system will always be either too late in the process to work, or a complete replacement. > Sometimes, we'd be able to feed its own input back to itself and ask it to evaluate if the previous output it gave is what we're after And that doesn't accomplish what "evaluate" actually means. It only does the same thing it always does (find something semantically close to "evaluate the thing"), but with a new prompt. If you are lucky, the new prompt will be responded to with output you like, but only if you are lucky. If we keep doing this process, we are effectively guessing what password will match a hash. That's called "brute forcing", and the fact it doesn't work is why your passwords are secure. > Doesn't matter if it fails sometimes It fails every time. Sometimes it "fails up". Stumbling into success is still stumbling. If I write a program that outputs random noise into a filter that hides all but the output I want, then eventually I will see that output. But crucially, the input is still random noise. What is the value of ChatGPT if it's no more than curated randomness? My point is that there is a very clear difference between impressive and functional. ChatGPT is impressive, not functional. You can't make it functional. You can only make it better at impressing you.