I use it extensively for coding, and I have used it to ask questions in things I know nothing about. But in anything I do know something (or maybe a lot) about,

I use it extensively for coding, and I have used it to ask questions in things I know nothing about. But in anything I do know something (or maybe a lot) about, I’ve found GPT4 very limited. But why are these use cases different? It appears to me that code is at least subject to sustained logic which (evidently) translates quite well to LLMs. And when you ask an LLM to be creative/generative, it’s also pretty amazing - j mean it’s just doing the Pascal’s Marble run enmasse. But to ask it for something about the world and expect a good and reliable answer? Aren’t we just setting ourselves up for failure if we think this is a fine thing to do at our current point in time? We already have enough trouble with mis- and dis- information. It’s not like asking it about a certain period in Japanese history is getting it to crawl and summarise the Wikipedia page (although I appreciate it would be more than capable of this) I understand the awe some have at the concept of totally personalised and individualised learning on topics, but fuck me dead we are literally asking a system that has had as much of a corpus of humanity’s textual information as possible dumped into it and then asking it to GENERATE responses between things that the associations it holds may be so weak as to reliably produce gibberish, and the person on the other side has no real way of knowing that