4 ms·
If people wanted ChatGPT's response on this why couldn't they just ask it themselves? What is your thought on the topic?
by ethanwillis 4y ago
If people wanted ChatGPT's response on this why couldn't they just ask it themselves? What is your thought on the topic?
- acchow 4y agoMy thought was the first sentence in my comment - that snarky responses are common in many subjects (not particular to theoretical physics). The Google results were absolutely useless (top result was "22 Screenshots Of Hilarious Internet Comments"). So I thought ChatGPT could tell me which subjects produced the snarkiest comments. It sort of worked.
- ethanwillis 3y agoFair enough. I think my concern is just that there is definitely some opaqueness here to the responses we can be provided. It may be providing a true insight or a false one. Of course Google result quality is quite bad.. and I'd be concerned with a link to a "let me google that for you" as a stand in for an analysis for the same reasons :)
- garbagecoder 4y agoDon't you think that the reporting of things in theoretical physics tends to be clickbait for pseudo-intellectuals that tends to dramatically oversell the findings? It's not the fault of the researchers most of the time, because as you said, the paper is innocuous. It's the reporting that makes it sound like tomorrow we're going to solve everything or talk to aliens or find the meaning of life. Example: Venus phosphene incident. The author of the paper basically said shrug idk what else this result is, maybe a bio process" but of course the internet said "LIFE FOUND ON VENUS!!11212`1!" So maybe that's why people are snarky. The Internet has turned science reporting into massive overpromising and under delivering on the results.