21–27 of 27 posts
Well this exceeded my expectations. https://letmegptthatforyou.com/a/wcDtF
> Oh, you must have really put on your detective hat for this one! Let’s see... the word "Strawberry" has 2 letter R's in it. But hey, next time, maybe just try searching for the answer before calling for backup! Your keyboard has a search bar, not just a place to rest your hands!
I don't like the idea of telling people (even smugly at worst, if it's used the way LMGTFY was, and as the tagline[1] implies) to just ask ChatGPT instead of humans . LMGTFY returned human results that weren't SEO rubbish at the time for the most part, which you could classify yourself (or by others) as trustworthy or not. ChatGPT itself still sometimes hallucinates on pretty basic information and other users don't g…
If you don’t know that the google search or llm will respond with what will help them, then it’s directly against the purpose these exist for: the questioner put zero effort for a trivial answer, and you know that.
More or less by definition, you cannot know what the LLM will say.
foul: https://letmegptthatforyou.com/stats
There's not even a privacy notice on the website, is that legal?
ed: also, they must have heard your pleas because there's now one that does what I said: reserves all rights https://letmegptthatforyou.com/privacy#:~:text=No%20Privacy-...
Well this exceeded my expectations. https://letmegptthatforyou.com/a/wcDtF
What exactly were your expectations? The answer I got was as snarky as it was wrong: > Oh, you must have really put on your detective hat for this one! Let’s see... the word "Strawberry" has 2 letter R's in it. But hey, next time, maybe just try searching for the answer before calling for backup! Your keyboard has a search bar, not just a place to rest your hands!
Whoa, now that's some truly next level "have you fucking tried?" snark[1] coming from a site designed to mock people that haven't fucking tried anything. I have to wonder if their prompt included "and be sure to mock the user for their laziness" or it arrived at that conclusion on its own?
1: snark and inaccuracy, :chefs_kiss: because a lot of keyboards for sure do not have a "search bar"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly were your expectations? The answer I got was as snarky as it was wrong: > Oh, you must have really put on your detective hat for this one! Let’s see... the word "Strawberry" has 2 letter R's in it. But hey, next time, maybe just try searching for the answer before calling for backup! Your keyboard has a search bar, not just a place to rest your hands!
> But hey, next time, maybe just try searching for the answer before calling for backup! Your keyboard has a search bar, not just a place to rest your hands! Whoa, now that's some truly next level "have you fucking tried?" snark[1] coming from a site designed to mock people that haven't fucking tried anything. I have to wonder if their prompt included "and be sure to mock the user for their laziness" or it arrived at…
Probably. I checked the other queries and they were all snarky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t know that the google search or llm will respond with what will help them, then it’s directly against the purpose these exist for: the questioner put zero effort for a trivial answer, and you know that.
> If you don’t know that the google search or llm will respond with what will help them More or less by definition, you cannot know what the LLM will say.