[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.