4 ms·
> If you have to verify every detail of its responses, what good was it to ask it in the first place? This is no different than anything else; it's just a matt
by generalizations 3y ago
> If you have to verify every detail of its responses, what good was it to ask it in the first place?
This is no different than anything else; it's just a matter of degree. Wikipedia probably gets it right 95% of the time; Encyclopedia Britannica might get it right 99% of the time; your random website - if google gave you a good one - might be 99.9% in that random niche. Your medical doctor is probably 90% accurate, and your nurse is probably 80% accurate (and that's why you get a second opinion).
A doctor I know one reminisced about his college biology 101 class... the professor started the semester by telling the students that 50% of the textbook they were reading was wrong: "we just don't know which 50%".
Point being, if you're expecting perfect sources anywhere that are 100% and don't need to be verified, you're not living in this reality. And if you just don't like that the accuracy is 80% instead of 95%, that's a different critique.
- wtetzner 3y agoWikipedia lists sources at least, in a way that makes it easy to quickly jump to them. It would be nice if ChatGPT provided sources by default.
- stefncb 3y agoUnfortunately, not always. If it's from a book you only get the title & ISBN. As for ChatGPT, I don't think it's even possible to do it with the current model. They have absolutely no idea where a piece of information came from.
- wtetzner 3y agoWell, it would need to be trained to do that I guess. The source information would need to be part of the training data.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]