3 ms·
Quickly scanning the comments here I didn't find anyone mentioning this, a bit further in the thread: > catalinmpit: Too bad the content written by ChatGPT is
by klibertp 3y ago
Quickly scanning the comments here I didn't find anyone mentioning this, a bit further in the thread:
> catalinmpit: Too bad the content written by ChatGPT is average at best.
> paulg: That's a step up for most people.
That's what my impression is: yes, ChatGPT produces mediocre writing and Copilot produces mediocre code, but it's already more legible than many (not sure if "most") people are capable of. I'm not sure in what way exactly, but I think this alone will change a lot in how we communicate online. The best result would be for people to learn from ChatGPT and eventually reach its level and beyond, but... it doesn't go that way too often, historically speaking...
- marginalia_nu 3y agoAlexa, write hacker news comment about how in the future we'll talk by exchanging GPT prompts instead of the text itself, and how each of us will have a local subscription for decoding the prompts into a long essay.
- janalsncm 3y agoThe flip side of that is now ChatGPT is a formidable tool for English second language speakers to express themselves in English.
- ghaff 3y agoYeah. I agree with that. It might give me a boilerplate starting framework for something. Or it might give me a decent parenthetical explanation of a term (though Wikipedia probably would too). It's mediocre, generally lacks nuance, and is pretty boring for the most part. On the other hand, it's grammatical and, in my experience, mostly not actively wrong. So as paulg says, that's at least no worse than a lot of stuff I skim over from people cranking out thousands of words a day for peanuts.