[nearbuy]

> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better

Why?

> I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something

It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.

[thfuran]

>Why?

For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting.

>It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible

Those weren't requirements.

[nearbuy]

> Those weren't requirements.

Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds.

Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?

[thfuran]

ChatGPT wasn't asked to be impressive, it was asked to write a single sentence containing only five-letter words. I think that a tool that is unreliable is significantly less useful than a tool than is reliable and that, all other things being equal, a tool that fails in difficult to verify ways is less reliable than one that fails in easy to verify ways.

[nearbuy]

I agree with all of that.

I guess I interpreted your first response as disagreeing with my comment, when you were actually just bringing up a different topic.