4 ms·
> Data used for the charts was researched and compiled by ChatGPT, I spot checked it and found it was accurate enough to for the narrative. Last I checked, tha
by bolster 1y ago
> Data used for the charts was researched and compiled by ChatGPT, I spot checked it and found it was accurate enough to for the narrative.
Last I checked, that wasn't how citations worked.
I only sampled one data point (2017 AMD EPYC Rome Clock rate) which was significantly off, because in 2017 it was the Naples chipset that was released, and, unless 2017 was desperate enough to clock from 2.2Ghz to 3Ghz on the regular (Boost up to 3.2Ghz), the 'research' was a fair bit off...
Doesn't undermine or contradict the authors (bots?) point, but a strange way to provide 'evidence' for an argument.
- kamranjon 1y agoI read the whole thing but I got a strong AI vibe about half way through, felt like it was significantly padded with extra words to extend its length. Kind of annoying that blurb wasn’t placed at the beginning of the article…
- proggy 1y agoI feel like our planet’s long-term academic health would dramatically improve if something resembling the following statement was posted on the wall of every K-12 and college classroom: ChatGPT is not a primary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Google Search is not a primary source. Microsoft Encarta is not a primary source. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is not a primary source. Information aggregators are not primary sources. Identifiable people are primary sources.
- masfuerte 1y agoAnd we don't know what the prompt was. Maybe: Hey ChatGPT, here's a narrative. Please provide some plausible stats to support it.