3 ms·
> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better Why? > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with some
by nearbuy 3y ago
> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better
Why?
> I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something
It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.
- thfuran 3y ago>Why? For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting. >It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible Those weren't requirements.
- nearbuy 3y ago> Those weren't requirements. Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds. Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?
- thfuran 3y agoChatGPT wasn't asked to be impressive, it was asked to write a single sentence containing only five-letter words. I think that a tool that is unreliable is significantly less useful than a tool than is reliable and that, all other things being equal, a tool that fails in difficult to verify ways is less reliable than one that fails in easy to verify ways.
- nearbuy 3y agoI agree with all of that. I guess I interpreted your first response as disagreeing with my comment, when you were actually just bringing up a different topic.