4 ms·
>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 lengt
by 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.