4 ms·
This doesn't seem much different to me than how people should use wikipedia. It looks like it will be a useful tool to use, you just can't be careless.
by grp000 4y ago
This doesn't seem much different to me than how people should use wikipedia. It looks like it will be a useful tool to use, you just can't be careless.
- alfalfasprout 4y agoWikipedia has moderation and standards for sourcing, etc. that has made it generally very reliable. ChatGPT is a fancy parrot that sounds reliable. To actually verify that its output is correct requires more work and cross-referencing sources, etc.
- grp000 4y agoThat's a good point. For more complex topics, the act of verifying correctness is also more complex. I think it's a fair tradeoff though. A more powerful tool also requires more work to use CORRECTLY. Now, whether people will actually put in due diligence is another matter.