41–50 of 284 posts
At the top you should have a diagram like this:
Lat, lon address
With a few examples underneath.
ChatGPT gets the rules to the pokemon trading card game wrong. It will tell you you can use 4 energy a turn. Convincingly. Not sure how it hallucinates this. The rule is 1 per turn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like a pretty nasty assertion to bandy around with zero evidence.
I cannot think of any other reason why the new blog post wouldn't have mentioned the obvious connection to the earlier issues that they had. They want to make it seem like ChatGPT invented this use case but they know that the sample code that ChatGTP learned from was mentioned in their previous blog post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you call it instead?
"Makes stuff up." And it's us, the users, who have to realize this. I mean, I wouldn't blame OpenAI for this, at least not at this point, and the company will have to live with it, look how it can turn it into something useful instead, since there's no one to complain to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. It’s worse than that. It’s wrong, you cannot correct it and it makes up supporting citations on the fly. Very few humans behave like that.
I can think of more than a few that regularly appear on TV.
Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. I am hoping that in a year from now people will be more skeptical of what they hear from conversational AI. But perhaps that is optimistic of me.
> Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. It’s worse than that. It’s wrong, you cannot correct it and it makes up supporting citations on the fly. Very few humans behave like that.
But in the past, HN users "corroborated" that Apple is spying on them etc. Fabrication is well and alive among us.
Because ChatGPT is so new, we are in this weird period where people haven't learned that is just as incorrect as the rest of us. I am hoping that in a year from now people will be more skeptical of what they hear from conversational AI. But perhaps that is optimistic of me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you call it instead?
"Makes stuff up." And it's us, the users, who have to realize this. I mean, I wouldn't blame OpenAI for this, at least not at this point, and the company will have to live with it, look how it can turn it into something useful instead, since there's no one to complain to.
They're offering the tool, it's at least partially their responsibility to tell people how it should and should not be used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot think of any other reason why the new blog post wouldn't have mentioned the obvious connection to the earlier issues that they had. They want to make it seem like ChatGPT invented this use case but they know that the sample code that ChatGTP learned from was mentioned in their previous blog post.
There's a vast chasm between "whoever wrote this article didn't think to link to a similar issue a year ago" and "the first incident was a malicious hoax".