(As it happily goes, I was submitting this exactly while another member was submitting a video "How to learn anything with ChatGPT AI"... Well. Which also rises

(As it happily goes, I was submitting this exactly while another member was submitting a video "How to learn anything with ChatGPT AI"... Well. Which also rises: note to the peoples: explain to the world that "ANNs" are different from "AI" - that components used for AI are not AI. Sorting, in fact, now that one considers it, is more AI than ANNs are.) > This holds huge potential for personalized, independent learning ... except that ChatGPT often gets things wrong, and it does a very good job of hiding that. [E.g. in one occasion it] offered an eloquent list of examples, which on closer inspection included one that was wildly inaccurate[ (the main character had a turbulent relationship with his parents, the bot said, even though the character’s parents were dead throughout the book) ... [or, on some linear equations it sounded] as authoritative as any real math tutor [but] it turned out ChatGPT’s answers were wrong > How inaccurate is it? ... OpenAI said the company had updated ChatGPT over the last couple of months to improve its factual accuracy, but that it had no statistics to share [...] The problem is, we don’t know whether a huge jump in parameters also means a huge jump in trustworthiness. That is why students should use ChatGPT with caution, if at all, for the foreseeable future And this elicits a reaction: how can you really tweak a pig to soar - the same pig, just more of it - without embedding flight?! You have to implement ontology and critical processing!!! The article also mentions that Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Meta Platforms Inc. developed similar tools but have been careful in releasing them after the issue of untrustworthy information