> When asked to transcribe and translate those three lines at the bottom, the AI got the general idea, but also made significant errors > GPT-4 is quite useful

> When asked to transcribe and translate those three lines at the bottom, the AI got the general idea, but also made significant errors > GPT-4 is quite useful for “getting the gist” of written sources in unfamiliar languages. People don't like to deal with tedious details and issues like accuracy (perhaps separating the good historians from the bad). They seem to wish - and seeing general agreement from fellow dreamers and dismissing tiresome objectors they seem to believe - that somehow misinformation won't be a problem. I don't know how, but somehow, because everyone does it, everyone believes it. As if the zeitgeist of the post-truth era will save them and us from the consequences. As if accuracy (completeness, correctness, consistency) of information is like cooking - for most dishes, overcooked or undercooked isn't great but it's fine. Information doesn't work that way: Unless you can read the original yourself - and if so, you don't need the GPT to translate - you have no idea if the GPT's 'gist' is correct - any element of it could be wrong, and likely some are. And a small mechanical error can cause devestating misunderstandings, such as a 'not' being attached to the wrong word (and remember different languages have very different rules about word order). If the GPT translates something as 'to our surprise, Jones, not Smith, was the Soviet spy', what does the original really say? Was it Smith? Jones? Maybe they were 'not' surprised? The true, rational answer is that you have no idea what it says (without some outside information). Information where any element can be inaccurate is useless, and worse, dangerous: believing a falsehood is worse than thinking, 'I don't know'.