|
|
|
|
|
|
by O__________O
1287 days ago
|
|
|
Understand, though where exactly does ChatGPT claim to be a source of factual information? Wikipedia on the other hand does clearly state its intent to maintain reliability of its content: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Beyond that, in my opinion, while human dialogue might hedge confidence, disclose conflicts of interest, etc — to me, assumed the exchange is via text-based chat — there are much more efficient and effective ways to express that information than adding non-actionable text like that. |
|
|
It doesn't right now, but if you scroll up, you'll see the idea at the beginning of this thread is to turn it into a source of information.
The difference between ChatGPT and Wikipedia for this purpose is that:
1. Wikipedia is wrong wayyyyyyyy less often than ChatGPT
2. Wikipedia has sources linked at the bottom of the page you can go check, while ChatGPT does not