zlacker

>>isp+(OP)
Is there any indication that they will get the car? Getting a chatbot to say "legally binding" probably doesn't make it so. Just like changing the HTML of the catalog to edit prices doesn't entitle you to anything.

>>remram+m9
No. The author is demonstrating a concept - that there are many easy inroads to twisting ChatGPT around your finger. It was very tongue in cheek - a joke - the author has no true expectation of getting the car for $1.

>>roland+Md
But why is it so much different from "Inspect Element" and then changing website content to whatever you please?

I guess why is there an expectation that GPT must be not trickable by bad actors to produce whatever content.

What matters is that it would give good content to honest customers.

>>mewpme+rg
> But why is it so much different from "Inspect Element" and then changing website content to whatever you please?

For the same reasons forging a contract is different from getting an idiot to sign one.

>>ceejay+9h
You just add a disclaimer that none of what the bot says is legally binding, and it's an aid tool for finding the information that you are looking for. What's the problem with that?

>>mewpme+vh
Anytime a solution to a potentially complex problem is to the tune of "all you've got to do is..." may be an indicator that it's not a well thought out solution.

>>bumby+Hk
> This response is confusing. The point isn’t “considering something is worthless” but rather “considering something superficially tends to lead to poor outcomes”

Replying here as the thread won't allow for more. But I'm not following what you are meaning then.

I'm not seeing the outcome from Chevy being poor, any more than "inspect element" would be poor.

>>mewpme+Mp
The thread will allow replies given a delay that’s sufficient to try to avoid knee-jerk responses. Pretty ironic (or telling) that you responded in this way given the context of the discussion.