[ambicapter]

Every "impressive chatgpt" story I hear is about someone comparing what chatgpt produced to what a human produced, and saying it's scary close. No one talks about all the times they asked chatgpt to produce something, didn't compare it to what a human could do, and then realized it was catastrophically wrong once implemented.

[barking_biscuit]

I suppose all that really matters if the ratio of the two? I have use-cases for which I use GPT-4 and it does as good a job as I would, but faster and so I just leverage it by default now and am faster at certain things. There are also things I try it for and I don't get a useful result, so I learn not to rely on the model for that particular use-case. In that regard, it's a tool and you simply learn what it's useful for and what it's not.

[ambicapter]

But it's a tool that requires you to already know what you're doing, which I think cuts in to a lot of the techno-mystical powers that have been attributed to it.