Cool. As a consultant and subject matter expert, pretty every week, I have to make billable detours from productive work to explain to a client how they've bee

Cool. As a consultant and subject matter expert, pretty every week, I have to make billable detours from productive work to explain to a client how they've been led astray by some ChatGPT response that they put errant trust in. It's been critically wrong pretty much any time a client's presented me with a response from it. I get paid to help when this haple s and to fix things that go wrong, so I guess technically that's not a negative from my perspective, but it is kind of frustrating and does seem pretty wasteful. Meanwhile, as a friend, I've consistently had to coach people through doubting what they've received as medical guidance from ChatGPT and other chatbot or search LLM's, variously pointing out how: (a) the response doesn't actually agree with the cited sources nor correct information, (b) the cited are poor authorities (blogspam) and are not correct themselves, or (c) both. Thankfully, the consequences in both these kinds of scenarios have been innocuous to date, so ostensibly "not negative", because most ChatGPT/chatbot inquiries are really for moot trivia rather than anything of true consequence, but it's repeatedly shown itself to be a pretty risky and unreliable tool, as things go, so I accept that it's only a matter of time before the true "negative experience" comes and nudge people away from it when I can.