[_nalply]

> The result of GPT is highly plausible fiction which oftentimes happens to be factually correct.

Exactly. Short and to the point.

This is my take: For usecases where mistakes don't matter a lot, this is actually useful.

Some examples: generated fiction (mistakes are not mistakes but just an unexpected variation of a story), story-building for a game, and also everywhere you can fix the mistakes yourself (by fact-checking, getting started yourself, or escalating).

Of course this is dangerous if you are not able to catch the mistakes yourself.

I have the feeling: if consumers are powerless then AI is absolutely detrimental. They have to suck up the mistakes and even worse, they might be clueless being fed bullshit.

Some people indistinctly sense that and are afraid.

[Rochus]

> highly plausible fiction which oftentimes happens to be factually correct

Isn't this also a way to describe what the press gives us every day? I think the dangers you describe existed long before GPT.

[_nalply]

Of course. But it is unfair to compare press and AI. Press just gives you text.

[Rochus]

> But it is unfair to compare press and AI. Press just gives you text.

The press I know has a lot of pictures. And the comparison is not unfair at all. Both are Parrots repeating and recombining information from somewhere else, or just inventing new noises if there is nothing to copy.