|
|
|
|
|
|
by AOsborn
1179 days ago
|
|
|
> But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed since it's all natural language, what's intended itself will remain a bit fuzzy to the humans as well. Yeah, you're completely correct. But this is exactly the same as having a very knowledgeable but inexperienced person on your team. Humans get things wrong too. All this data is best if you have the experience or context to verify and confirm it. I heard a comment the other day that has stuck with me - ChatGPT is best as a tool if you're already an expert in that area, so you know if it is lying. |
|
|
Am I the only person who thought that predictable computer APIs that were testable and completely consistent were a massive improvement over using people for those tasks?
People seem to be taking it as a given that I'd want to have a conversation with a human every time I made a bank transfer or scheduled an appointment. Nothing could be further from the truth; I want my bank/calendar/terminal/alarm/television/etc to be less human.
Yes, there are human tasks here that ChatGPT might be a good fit for and where fuzzy context is important, and there's a ton of potential in those fuzzy areas. But many other tasks people are bringing up are in areas where ChatGPT isn't competing with human beings. Its competing with interfaces that are already far better than human beings would be, and the standards to replace those interfaces are far higher than being "as good as a human would be."