Nostr Web Client

Please, please do not ever respond to a post with an answer like “ChatGPT says…” or “Claude told me…”. It is very rude.

It is wrong. These tools can’t answer questions; they mash words around, and will make up nonsense. When the machine does it, it’s just gibberish, but by posting it, you’re turning it into a lie, and anyone who posts or repeats it without attribution will turn it into disinformation.

It wastes time. Now everyone has to fact-check you instead of researching the question.

3ac0182c... 2y ago

nostr:npub1pfe56vzppw077dd04ycr8mx72dqdk0m95ccdfu2j9ak3n7m89nrsf9e2dm I agree that it's rude and bad to do this, but GPT-4 has a high enough hit rate IME that this part seems like a stretch:

> These tools can’t answer questions; they mash words around, and will make up nonsense.

They definitely can answer questions. With RLHF, that is specifically what they're designed/trained to do, and they're pretty good at it in many domains. But, posting the answer without checking it is, as you say, either lying or bullshit.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Glyph 2y ago

nostr:npub1ve7g5q4lsth9z6n39mt9sctj8708sxcn465ucm8m9fancgg02l3ql8ydyh also while the marketing claims are that it’s more factual and reliable, academic literature does not seem to bear that out as far as I’ve seen. For a recent example, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.09009.pdf

I’ve seen it do okay at *parsing* tasks, where it’s only responsible for interpreting input rather than producing output. Still not 100% reliable but if you can check its work it doesn’t seem too bad. A “calculator for words” if you can structure your expectations appropriately