undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalbntomat03y ago0 comments

Privacy concerns and ChatGPT have different failure modes.

If ChatGPT fabricates a link or makes something up, there's a potential feedback mechanism. E.g. I ask ChatGPT to explain a science term, and then I get told that my understanding is incorrect in class when I use the ChatGPT definition.

It doesn't exist for every use case, but I'm hopeful everyone will be "bitten" once by ChatGPT etc., and then folks will verify its output appropriately.

0 comments

grp0003y ago

This doesn't seem much different to me than how people should use wikipedia. It looks like it will be a useful tool to use, you just can't be careless.

alfalfasprout3y ago

Wikipedia has moderation and standards for sourcing, etc. that has made it generally very reliable. ChatGPT is a fancy parrot that sounds reliable. To actually verify that its output is correct requires more work and cross-referencing sources, etc.

grp0003y ago

That's a good point. For more complex topics, the act of verifying correctness is also more complex. I think it's a fair tradeoff though. A more powerful tool also requires more work to use CORRECTLY. Now, whether people will actually put in due diligence is another matter.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

grp0003y ago

This doesn't seem much different to me than how people should use wikipedia. It looks like it will be a useful tool to use, you just can't be careless.

alfalfasprout3y ago

grp0003y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse