[assimpleaspossi]

I find comments similar to yours about ChatGPT all over the internet. I finally took the time to ask that some questions over the last few days. All the answers it gave were mundane and expected from any click bait web site you can find. I Googled the same questions and found similar answers.

Some personal questions it refused to answer or give suggestions because "only you can decide" was the response.

I'm very suspicious of all this. I'm thinking the only real benefit--some may say--is the chat aspect. You can carry on a conversation rather than having to determine a proper Google search over and over again.

Which makes me think there is some hype involved.

[outworlder]

> Which makes me think there is some hype involved.

There's _a lot_ of hype.

It's a good tool if you forget about any "intelligence" and just think of it as a tool. We don't expect search engines to be 'intelligent', we expect them to return results we are interested in, in an efficient manner.

In the case of this and similar tools, it is a text generator. It will generate _something_ based on your input. In many cases, it will make up stuff because it has to generate something. Note how it will not ask follow-up questions to 'understand' you (because it doesn't understand anything). You have to apply judgment and ask the follow up questions yourself.

One thing I found these tools to be useful is to mitigate the "blinking cursor on an empty document" paralysis. I just asked the "Pulumi AI" to generate some code that, while not really correct to my needs, is a good starting point for modification.

If you ask it to generate something from you, other than just a pre-made response that you could google, then it's more useful.

[robertfall]

GPT 4 is a massive improvement in this regard.

Copilot specifically asked me to provide the capacitance value for the capacitor closest to the comment pin in response to my question about optimal resistance for a resistor. Once I provided the value (by setting it in the tool, not by typing it in the chat) and asked it to try again it thanked me for the new info and gave back a good resistance value and how it arrived at it.

[gfodor]

You’re probably not using GPT-4, the internet is being flooded with takes about GPT-3.5’s quality like this simply because the author doesn’t know there is a meaningful difference with the new model.

[pigeons]

GPT-4 still confidently makes up sources for wrong answers and throws subtle mistakes (the obvious mistakes aren't as big a nuisance) into output.

This isn't to say gpt-4 isn't cool or impressive or a development to watch and learn about and be excited about, but I frequently see criticism dismissed as "you must be using 3.5" while I find 4 still costs more time than it would have potentially saved.

[gfodor]

Of course this is possible but usually criticizing a dismissal like this as being wrong comes after it has been proven wrong.

[jacquesm]

If GPT-X would just shut up if it doesn't know something it would already be 10x more useful than it is right now.

[gedy]

Isn't that the core issue? Its model doesn't really "know" what is real or made up.

[assimpleaspossi]

When I go here: https://openai.com/product/gpt-4 it says "try on chatgpt plus" and sends me to the same page I log in with and that's where I've been testing it.

[sbohacek]

Be sure that you select GPT-4 from the drop down list of models. For each new chat, it reverts back to default GPT-3.5.

[assimpleaspossi]

I don't see any dropdowns for such a thing.