> Mar 1st, 2023 is where things get interesting. This document was filed—“Affirmation in Opposition to Motion”—and it cites entirely fictional cases! One example quoted from that document (emphasis mine):
The very first limitation listed on the ChatGPT introduction post is about incorrect answers - https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt. This has not changed since ChatGPT was announced. OpenAI is advertising that it will generate more than plausible language.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. As much as I understand your scepticism, OpenAI have been very transparent about the limitations of GPT and it is not truthful to say otherwise.
A definition of "plausible" is "apparently reasonable and credible, and therefore convincing".
In what limit does "apparently reasonable and credible" diverge from "true"?
We'd make the LLM not lie if we could. All this "plausible" language constitutes practitioner weasel words. We'd collectively love if the LLMs were more truthful than a 5-year-old.
From https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/27/lawyer-chatgpt/ (which has the dates)
> Mar 1st, 2023 is where things get interesting. This document was filed—“Affirmation in Opposition to Motion”—and it cites entirely fictional cases! One example quoted from that document (emphasis mine):
GPT-4 wasn't available until March 14th ( https://openai.com/research/gpt-4 ), so we're dealing with 3.5 here.
Where was 3.5 advertised to do more than generate plausible language in a conversation and who is making those claims?