3 ms·
I've thought a lot about this myself, it's one thing to have an "AI" system tell you something, it's a very different thing to trust it without doing the (often
by ChatGTP 3y ago
I've thought a lot about this myself, it's one thing to have an "AI" system tell you something, it's a very different thing to trust it without doing the (often arduous) task of verification.
- 15457345234 3y agoI've thought a lot about this and can't figure out why people aren't realizing that an 'AI agent' which lies constantly about facts which are _trivial_ to validate has _negative_ value. I asked it 'which cherry keyboard switches are clicky, the red ones or the blue ones' and it lied and said that the red ones are clicky. That's information that's contained on about ten thousand blogs because of the mechanical keyboard fad but it still got the answer wrong. That's negative value, right there. An immediately and obviously unreliable misinformation generator. Haven't used it since. Seems to me a bit like the Flipper Zero - it's a good tool for a certain type of person.
- ChatGTP 3y agoIt’s a barrier for me, I often think I should “outsource” something to ChatGPT and then I realise I’ve been lied to before. Apparently ChatGPT 4 is better but I’m not paying for it after my crappy experiences with 3.
- 15457345234 3y ago> Apparently ChatGPT 4 is better but I’m not paying for it The thing about this is, even if 4 was infinitely better than 3 (it never lied, never hallucinated) leaving 3 open to the world is such an obvious unmitigated hazard that I'd never ethically be able to do business with them. 3 is a mischief machine, it should not be available to the public. People will trivially use it to generate horseshit websites that will clutter google with shit. We're already seeing this happen. It's like buying caltrops from a company that advertises them by leaving 'demonstration samples' in roads.