Ask ChatGPT to estimate the carbs in your lunch. Now ask it again. And again. Five hundred times. You’d expect the same answer each time. It’s the same photo, the same model, the same question. But you won’t get the same answer. Not even close — and the differences are large enough to cause a
That’s obviously bullshit but he’s not telling users they can develop time travel or something. That’s the distinction I would draw. He’s selling investment. That’s not where the end users that are misusing ChatGPT are at.
It’s the job of the company and especially the face and CEO of the company to sell the product. Compared to Sam Altman’s promises, the use in this post is practically modest.
If you think this isn’t the case, maybe you can point to some ChatGPT marketing that would make it clear what correct, and especially incorrect usage would look like?
They don’t. They say we made this thing, see what you can do with it. They also put disclaimers on ChatGPT to say not to rely on it to be correct.
One can infer from that, that any use for which you are relying on accuracy is incorrect use. Which is why it’s critical to have any output filtered through a domain-capable human.
“The thing that I think will be most impactful on that five to ten year timeframe is AI will actually discover new science.” - Sam Altman
This is what the face of OpenAI explicitly says their product is for. Do you have anything more concrete? Or am I just to buy into this infinite good faith and assume that anything dumb Trump Sammy says is just hyperbole?
He’s not selling anything specific and not to end users. You’re talking about something completely different. The way Sam and investors and corporate customers talk about AI is pretty misleading, but it’s not misleading users. No one looks at AI replacing CSRs and inventing new sciences, whatever the fuck that means, and jumps to it can unerringly diagnose a rash. And even if they did, the bot explicitly says not to trust it.
If some dirt farmer asks it how to avoid losing his family farm in a drought and takes ChatGPT’s advice to plant chocolate chips and loses the farm anyway, I suggest that’s a user error.
We might as well be discussing whether the tobacco industry has mislead customers because they have a little disclaimer on their cartons.
Mainstream media publishes Sammy’s statements uncritically. ChatGPT releases ads. It’s extremely clear he is misleading the general public, his users. I don’t know why you’re in denial over this.
That’s obviously bullshit but he’s not telling users they can develop time travel or something. That’s the distinction I would draw. He’s selling investment. That’s not where the end users that are misusing ChatGPT are at.
It’s the job of the company and especially the face and CEO of the company to sell the product. Compared to Sam Altman’s promises, the use in this post is practically modest.
If you think this isn’t the case, maybe you can point to some ChatGPT marketing that would make it clear what correct, and especially incorrect usage would look like?
They don’t. They say we made this thing, see what you can do with it. They also put disclaimers on ChatGPT to say not to rely on it to be correct.
One can infer from that, that any use for which you are relying on accuracy is incorrect use. Which is why it’s critical to have any output filtered through a domain-capable human.
“The thing that I think will be most impactful on that five to ten year timeframe is AI will actually discover new science.” - Sam Altman
This is what the face of OpenAI explicitly says their product is for. Do you have anything more concrete? Or am I just to buy into this infinite good faith and assume that anything dumb
TrumpSammy says is just hyperbole?He’s not selling anything specific and not to end users. You’re talking about something completely different. The way Sam and investors and corporate customers talk about AI is pretty misleading, but it’s not misleading users. No one looks at AI replacing CSRs and inventing new sciences, whatever the fuck that means, and jumps to it can unerringly diagnose a rash. And even if they did, the bot explicitly says not to trust it.
If some dirt farmer asks it how to avoid losing his family farm in a drought and takes ChatGPT’s advice to plant chocolate chips and loses the farm anyway, I suggest that’s a user error.
We might as well be discussing whether the tobacco industry has mislead customers because they have a little disclaimer on their cartons.
Mainstream media publishes Sammy’s statements uncritically. ChatGPT releases ads. It’s extremely clear he is misleading the general public, his users. I don’t know why you’re in denial over this.