zlacker

> seems

Suppose you can consult an expert, or some bookworm who suffered from strokes that impaired judgement while preserving intaken notions.

>>mdp202+(OP)
Sure, being able to consult an expert on some topic is definitely more useful (and less likely to be reasonable sounding gibberish, depending on the field), but that's not always possible.

I've been somewhat skeptical of AI in the past, but I've been blown away by how useful chatGPT has been. I used it to learn a bunch about laser transceivers for fiber optics the other night. I didn't really believe everything it said, so I had to Google on the side, but I was lost trying to find answers on my own.

>>foota+P2
> reasonable sounding gibberish

I would be very scared of an unintelligent pretender.

> AI

"AI" is a different thing ;) No need to be skeptical, no more than of sorting. "AI" just means "a solver". "Computer" was a profession before the automation.

(In fact, one could argue that chatGPT does not exactly look like AI, because in a way it does not look like a solver. It may seem to diverge, not to approximate.)

> how useful ... used it to learn a bunch about

What did you do, you asked it to summarize pages?