2 ms·

It's probably somewhere around "USG should not offer a chatbot on its websites." You're right that the bot can't possibly do the right thing in all possible sc

• jjk166 8mo ago
  That something can be broken by a sufficiently bad actor does not mean it's not useful to the overwhelming majority of people who use it for what it was meant for.
  • woodruffw 8mo ago
    I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. (Or in other words: show me something you’d ask a chatbot here, and I’ll show you something you can put on a single HTML page.)
    • jjk166 8mo ago
      > I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. And what evidence do you have that it is not in fact useful? > TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. Where? > Ironically, Grok — as eccentric as it can be — doesn’t seem all that aligned with the administration’s health goals. Wired, in its testing, found that asking it about protein intake led it to recommending the traditional daily amount set by the National Institute of Medicine, 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. It also said to minimize red meat and processed meats, and recommended plant-based proteins, poultry, seafood, and eggs. Seems pretty useful to me.