51–53 of 53 posts
This is terrible. The idea of ChatGPT being able to fill in gaps of not knowing what you don’t know is appealing, but you need to actually know something about the topic to evaluate ChatGPTs ability. This is just spewing pure nonsense, and the author thinks he has learned something from it.
This is terrible. The idea of ChatGPT being able to fill in gaps of not knowing what you don’t know is appealing, but you need to actually know something about the topic to evaluate ChatGPTs ability. This is just spewing pure nonsense, and the author thinks he has learned something from it.
This. If you've been following GPT at all you'd be crazy to try to use it to learn new things. It's very clear the output is not accurate, and prone to hallucination, and requires an already knowledgable user to judge its veracity and validity. I was worried something like this would happen. AI will usher in a dark age thanks to overfitting and convenience and naivety. It's going to be like the current info literacy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim might be true but this evidence does not establish it. A company having planned to replace a kind of job with AI is quite distinct from the number of that kind of job falling as a result of AI.
I agree, millions is entirely unknowable right now, but there were two distinct statements and you didn’t say which you wanted a citation for, so I supplied a citation for the verifiable statement and asked which you were challenging.