4 ms·

Am posting this article mostly to showcase how sloppy much of the current reporting (and thinking) around ChatGPT is. Take this snippet, right from the top: M

Am posting this article mostly to showcase how sloppy much of the current reporting (and thinking) around ChatGPT is. Take this snippet, right from the top: Millions of people are already using apps like ChatGPT to write books, create art, and develop code. No - millions of people have tried these apps, motivated by some mixture of serious interest and, basically, shits and giggles. That doesn't mean they've used the apps to actually create useful stuff (for either business-grade use, or for sale, regardless of value) in those categories. Or maybe "thousands" have -- but not millions. Then again - if facts don't matter to ChatGPT, then why should they matter to journalists out for an easy puff piece?

rvz 4y ago
> No - millions of people have tried these apps, motivated by some mixture of serious interest and, basically, shits and giggles. That doesn't mean they've used the apps to actually useful stuff (for either business-grade use, or for sale, regardless of value) in those categories. Totally and absolutely correct. 'Thousands' not 'millions'. Vox is essentially late to the click-bait party and attempting to capitalize on the ChatGPT hype which is a glorified bullshit generator with limited use-cases since it can't be used for anything serious other than text summarization. > Then again - if facts don't matter to ChatGPT, then why should they matter to journalists out for an easy puff piece? Vox is searching for an excuse to join the AI hype with low quality articles like this one. A shame that journalists have bought into the generative AI hype and never brought or mentioned any serious use-case outside of text summarization. This current AI hype is no better than crypto in 2017.