[8organicbits]

> the bots are still prone to basic errors that make them impossible to trust

This has been my frustration. If I don't bring my own domain knowledge, carefully review, and provide follow up prompts I get garbage output. Novices don't have great domain knowledge and likely overestimate the quality of the output. It's not worth the effort.

It's helpful to know what chatgpt can't handle: math, visual, spacial, safety. It's pretty limited.

[ExtremisAndy]

I'm trying to remain impressed and open-minded, and there's no question these things are super cool, and something genuinely exciting. And who knows how much they'll improve over the next few years? But so far, if I'm brutally honest, they have largely been frustrating to work with. I am a teacher, and I use them (mainly via APIs) to generate questions for worksheets and study guides for my students. The idea of letting the computer help me save time on creating those kinds of exercises so that I can then focus on the more interesting/challenging activities initially sounded so good, but I've found I'm completely unable to trust these systems to generate correct information. Almost every question set or study guide I've generated had at least one, sometimes several, serious errors that would have led my students astray. It does still save time, and I'm sure it will get better. But like you said, the fact that I have to constantly correct its output basically eliminates the possibility, at least for now, of using it as a tutor to teach me material that is genuinely new to me (something I was looking forward to doing). I simply can't trust it for that at this point. We'll see how things evolve.