> ChatGPT first gave a wrong answer (because my question actually wasn't accurate). but after some clarification answered something that appeared correct, and a

> ChatGPT first gave a wrong answer (because my question actually wasn't accurate). but after some clarification answered something that appeared correct, and after 1-2 minutes of further research and validation, I was 100% that it was indeed the correct answer Exactly. You answered your own question and that is the author's point. Do you even know why it gave the incorrect answer at first? Not even ChatGPT can explain to you why it did that or keeps doing this. How can you trust it to give the right answer (without you Googling to check) if you really don't know the answer? It already means you don't trust it an you know it bullshits as the author has claimed. It can confidently convince someone outside of one's own expertise that it can give a soundly correct answer but can easily be bullshitting nonsense. > Well. Any philosopher, mathematician, scientist, or novelist was trained on plenty of actual facts (established works of other people, school learning, experiments) and huge archives of bullshit (individual day-to-day experiences that cannot be called scientific, casual conversations just like Twitter conversations, propaganda, lies). Their output then would also be bullshit, and by extension, everything humanity ever created. The difference is with humans, they can be transparently held to account on whatever they say. An AI system cannot. So this actual whataboutism towards humans is incredibly weak here and a common excuse by AI proponents supporting the nonsense that AI systems like ChatGPT can uncontrollably generate in a black box system.