4 ms·

I have played around with ChatGPT and noticed that it "invents" papers and references. But yeah, I feel like it is unlikely (not impossible) that a peer reviewe

I have played around with ChatGPT and noticed that it "invents" papers and references. But yeah, I feel like it is unlikely (not impossible) that a peer reviewer would actually not even check the outputs.

busymom0 4y ago
Just yesterday, I asked it a question about whether a certain company said something specifically and first it said no. Then I asked it if the company said that in its SEC filings and then it said yes. Then I pointed out to it that it’s answer contradicts its previous answer and it apologized. Then I asked it for a link to the sec filing and it gave me the wrong link. Another example was where it said that a certain study found a specific thing. I asked it for a link to the study and it responded that it never referred to any study. So I pointed out that it did refer to a specific study and it apologized again and gave me the wrong link. Overall, it’s almost like it pretends to know more than what it knows but is overconfident.
- mb_72 4y ago
  Sounds quite human.
- gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
  I think the new Bing AI chat works better (for the most part) for stuff that are more "fact-based" especially since it cites references better. Note that you have to check the references too since sometimes there are mistakes. I would avoid ChatGPT for stuff like "Can you recommend me papers on machine learning for specific problem/task" since the model sort of makes up stuff. The main value of ChatGPT for me (so far) is not for tasks where I get information from it but where it gives me information to start something. "Write me an authorization letter", "create a 10-slide presentation on this topic", or "I have this function, can you write some unit tests" has been very useful for me. Not because the outputs are correct but they lower the inertia for me working on tasks. I rarely get outputs that work 100% out of the box that I don't have to fix or reshape. One personal rule is that I never ask it stuff that I normally won't be able to do by myself.

busymom0 4y ago

Just yesterday, I asked it a question about whether a certain company said something specifically and first it said no. Then I asked it if the company said that in its SEC filings and then it said yes. Then I pointed out to it that it’s answer contradicts its previous answer and it apologized. Then I asked it for a link to the sec filing and it gave me the wrong link. Another example was where it said that a certain study found a specific thing. I asked it for a link to the study and it responded that it never referred to any study. So I pointed out that it did refer to a specific study and it apologized again and gave me the wrong link. Overall, it’s almost like it pretends to know more than what it knows but is overconfident.

mb_72 4y ago
Sounds quite human.
gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
I think the new Bing AI chat works better (for the most part) for stuff that are more "fact-based" especially since it cites references better. Note that you have to check the references too since sometimes there are mistakes. I would avoid ChatGPT for stuff like "Can you recommend me papers on machine learning for specific problem/task" since the model sort of makes up stuff. The main value of ChatGPT for me (so far) is not for tasks where I get information from it but where it gives me information to start something. "Write me an authorization letter", "create a 10-slide presentation on this topic", or "I have this function, can you write some unit tests" has been very useful for me. Not because the outputs are correct but they lower the inertia for me working on tasks. I rarely get outputs that work 100% out of the box that I don't have to fix or reshape. One personal rule is that I never ask it stuff that I normally won't be able to do by myself.