zlacker

>>djtrip+(OP)
Yes, ban it. I've been playing around with ChatGPT and where it starts failing is just where things start becoming interesting. What that means is that it's wikipedia-smart, i.e. it doesn't really tell you anything you can't find out with a minimal Google search. It does however cut the time-to-answer quite a bit, particularly if it's an area of knowledge you're not really that familiar with. But it bottoms out right as things start getting interesting, expertise wise.

Case example: I tried seeing what its limits on chemical knowledge were, starting with simple electron structures of molecules, and it does OK - remarkably, it got the advanced high-school level of methane's electronic structure right. It choked when it came to the molecular orbital picture and while it managed to list the differences between old-school hybrid orbitals and modern molecular orbitals, it couldn't really go into any interesting details about the molecular orbital structure of methane. Searching the web, I notice such details are mostly found in places like figures in research papers, not so much in text.

On the other hand, since I'm a neophyte when it comes to database architecture, it was great at answering what I'm sure any expert would consider basic questions.

Allowing comments sections to be clogged up with ChatGPT output would thus be like going to a restaurant that only served averaged-out mediocre but mostly-acceptable takes on recipes.

>>photoc+K8
The problem with ChatGPT is that it often reads authoritative. But is often just flat out wrong.

I asked it a few questions for which I consider myself a subject matter expert and the answers were laughably wrong.

>>scarfa+Km1
> The problem with ChatGPT is that it often reads authoritative. But is often just flat out wrong.

That sounds pretty damn human to me.

>>tstrim+9K1
yeah, tough to distinguish human BS, from an incorrect ChatGPT.