[rvz]

> However, the moment I ask a real question that goes beyond summarizing something which is covered thousands of times online, I am immediately let down.

I'm very sure I said this from the start, against the ridiculous hype. Summarization of existing text is the *only* safe use case for LLMs. Anything else is asking for disappointment.

We have already seen it used as a search engine and it confidently hallucinates incorrect information. We have seen it pretend to be a medical professional or a replacement attorney or lawyer and it has outright regurgitated nonsensical and dangerous advice - making itself completely unreliable for that use-case especially since (deep) neural networks in general are still the same black-boxes, unable to explain and reason about their own decisions; making them unsuitable for high risk applications and use-cases.

As for writing code, despite what the hype-squad tells you both GPT-4 and ChatGPT the ground reality is that it generates broken code from the start and cannot reason why it did that in the first place. Non-programmers wouldn't question its output where as an experienced professional would catch its errors immediately.

Due to its untrustworthiness, it means than now programmers have to check and review the output that has been generated by GPT-4 and ChatGPT every-time in their projects than before.

The AI LLM hype has only further exposed its limitations.