[notahacker]

> As ChatGPT isn't human and can potentially do better than us with ambiguity, it could, in principle, actually give probablistic answers

Surely it's the opposite? As ChatGPT isn't human, hasn't seen any video, visited any sites or had any experience of ballistics and is simply inferring connections between "JFK", "gunmen" and "grassy knolls" and a question about probability from its model of human texts, it has no novel insight into the probability of a second gunmen [but can hallucinate the probability on demand. You can get variety in answers by turning the temperature up, but the underlying distribution is the distribution of human writing on the subject included in its corpus, adjusted by answers rejected in training. And on a similar note, GPT is incapable of accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of a president as an emotional response because it has no emotions or even an internally consistent 'opinion' on presidents, but is also very good at associating concepts like the 'legitimacy of the election' with semantically related statements like 'the majority of legally cast votes' so it absolutely can and will blur the boundaries between claims of fact [including those it has been taught to treat as false[ and claims of value.