3 ms·
> I was initially sceptical, then wowed, then stopped using it entirely... Similar as well in my case. I think that my problem is that the core of its answers
by zepearl 3y ago
> I was initially sceptical, then wowed, then stopped using it entirely...
Similar as well in my case.
I think that my problem is that the core of its answers are extremely confident, and it's personally hard for me to switch into the "doubt"-mode when I read such a confident reply.
I still use it, but very very rarely, and only when I'm desperate to get at least some hints (and I'm therefore psychologically ready to doublecheck all infos contained in the answer).
- Gibbon1 3y agoI feel it's really problematic in a bureaucratic environment. AI won't have any compunction about making a false claim. But a bureaucrat has to stick their neck out to say, yeah no that's ridiculous. And also it's easy for AI make an authoritative sounding accusation and then the system to demand the victim be able to prove a negative.
- candiodari 3y agoYou know, people keep repeating this claim. And then you ask "now give me an example of a bureaucrat being punished by a judge, either by jail time or fine or damages" (they're, after all, mostly personally liable) And somehow, very, very, very few such examples are available. The reverse, however, for example Police officers getting away with sometimes literally murder, or using surveillance powers on ex-girlfriends, or beating up people without justification, or ... But equally less serious offences like government workers threatening people coming in going unpunished. That you hear all the time.
- Gibbon1 3y agoI suggest talking to non law enforcement bureaucrats. The reason you see few examples is because it's rare for a bureaucrat at least in the US to do anything outside the box.