4 ms·
That’s interesting, thank you for the gentle correction and illuminating that caveat. I just shouldn’t make assertions about topics I have no background with wh
by floam 2y ago
That’s interesting, thank you for the gentle correction and illuminating that caveat. I just shouldn’t make assertions about topics I have no background with when I know I just read about this on Google Scholar right before commenting. I’m basically confidently faking it like ChatGPT.
“ah they stitch it to this neat synthetic graft stuff therefore glue couldn’t/wouldn’t be used”: wrong.
- alecst 2y agoWow. I really appreciate the humility and candor shown by you in response to being corrected. I’m genuinely impressed.
- shiroiushi 2y ago>I’m basically confidently faking it like ChatGPT. No, this is different. You're reading a scholarly source and regurgitating it without knowing some of the tiny details or exceptions that would only be common knowledge to an actual practitioner in the field. ChatGPT would be making up completely different things, such as claiming the artificial hearts use subspace fields to work.
- Filligree 2y agoI have literally never seen it do something like that.
- itishappy 2y agoChatGPT says pretty much exactly what the parent comment said, because they both used pretty much exactly the same workflow to generate responses. Both are pulling from scholarly sources (and shared experience such as their knowledge of language) and synthesizing an answer. Neither are experts in the field. Ironically, the main source of misinformation in this thread appears to be you.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]