Seems that this depends on the definition of “lie.” It might be true that humans aren’t trying to deceive others 95% of the time, just like it’s true that ChatG

Seems that this depends on the definition of “lie.” It might be true that humans aren’t trying to deceive others 95% of the time, just like it’s true that ChatGPT isn’t _trying_ to deceive people 100% of the time. But both of them have a habit of spreading a ton of misinformation. For humans, there’s simply an alarming percent of the time they present faulting memories as facts, with no one questioning them and believing them entirely at face value. You mentioned Hacker News comments. I’ve been unsettled by the number of times someone makes a grand claim with absolutely no evidence, and people respond to it like it’s completely true. I sometimes think “well, that’s a serious claim that they aren’t presenting any evidence for, I’m sure people will either ignore it or ask for more evidence,” and then return to the topic later and the comments are all going, “Amazing, I never new this!” Often when one looks it up, there seems to be no evidence for the claim, or the person is (intentionally or not) completely misrepresenting it. But it takes mere seconds to make a claim, and takes a much longer time for someone to fact check it (often the topic has fallen off the main page by then). This is all over the internet. You’d think “don’t automatically believe grand claims made by strangers online and presented with zero evidence” would be common sense, but it rarely seems to be practiced. And not just the internet; there are plenty of times when I’ve tracked down the primary sources for articles and found that they painted a very different story from the one presented. I actually think people have been more skeptical of ChatGPT responses than they have about confident human created nonsense.