> ChatGPT, for example, doesn’t understand the responses it gives you; it simply associates a given prompt with information it has access to and regurgitates pl

> ChatGPT, for example, doesn’t understand the responses it gives you; it simply associates a given prompt with information it has access to and regurgitates plausible-sounding sentences I don't like this tone, in the sense that suggesting what ChatGPT does is "simply" and "regurgitates" feels like a biased interpretation of what the tech is doing. I think it is fair to say: ChatGPT is very good at creating convincing appearing content that is also incorrect. Validating content that appears high-quality in form but is actually low-quality in content is a major challenge for moderators. Banning suspicious accounts that moderators believe are spamming ChatGPT based responses is easier than individually validating each and every post from such accounts manually. As the number of posts from ChatGPT backed accounts multiplies this would become increasingly difficult and time consuming. I understand their pain and I hope they find a solution. But my gut tells me that whatever solution they come up with will be forced to tolerate some amount of GPT generated content.