zlacker

>>isp+(OP)
A cautionary tale for why not to put unfiltered ChatGPT output directly to customers.

Nitter mirror: https://nitter.net/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121

Related - "New kind of resource consumption attack just dropped": https://twitter.com/loganb/status/1736449964006654329 | https://nitter.net/loganb/status/1736449964006654329

>>isp+1
The only correct user of generative ai is one that can evaluate the results. Which is why it’s not a tool for non subject area experts.

That’s the conclusion I’ve drawn anyway. So it’s a good tool for the customer service team not a replacement for it

>>pacifi+k7
I still think it's a great tool for when truthfulness and accuracy don't matter. It's not exactly creative, but it can spew out some pretty useful fiction for things like text adventures and other fictional filler text.

I'm personally using it because SEO bullshit has ruined search engines. AI can still sift through bullshit search results, for now. The key is assuming the AI lies and actually reading the page it links, because it'll make up facts and summaries even if they directly oppose the quoted source material.

I fear AI tools will soon befall the same faith as Google (where searching for an obscure term will land you a page of search results that's 75% malware and phishing links), but for now Bard and Bing Chat have their uses.

>>jeroen+v8
> but it can spew out some pretty useful fiction for things like text adventures and other fictional filler text.

It can generate output, but I'd not want to use it for anything because it's all so poorly written.