[wslh]

I use ChatGPT everyday and I am sure it is a great, novel, and revolutionary tool. I said I am sure because I can measure how ChatGPT inproves my daily work. I don't use it for software development because I am in a management role now.

The first insight is that an article that I need to publish could be proofread immediately while before I used an incredible professional content editor that could take hours for reviewing and improving the article. The editor continues to work for us though ;-). In general, the ChatGPT answers should not be copy and pasted but be merged with your content.

Another insight is that ChatGPT is gradually replacing or being a complement to Google Search. Google Search is terrible nowadays and simple questions in ChatGPT are a good way to start a search in a domain that you are not expert at. It needs a dialectic approach but works.

I would say garbage-in / garbage-out: if you interact with original questions the tool could be more insightful but be always critical of the output.

[worksonmine]

Are you using ChatGPT to proofread your articles? And you trust it despite the hallucinations? Isn't that very backwards? You should proofread and triple check the output, unless the articles you're writing are fiction and you use it for spell-checking, but then just use the spell-checking in your editor.

[wslh]

I mentioned in my comment that I merge the content. Since I know my field I know what is wrong and what is right. That is why I said: "garbage-in / garbage-out" if you expect that ChatGPT will solve your "homework" it will not work but if you know your field you are in an excellent position.

BTW, there are a lot of issues in Wikipedia pages as well. There is a general issue with being critical in general, ChatGPT is no different.

[worksonmine]

But you claim ChatGPT replaces your human proofreader, which is what I'm curious about. Now you claim that you can proofread yourself since you know your field, so how exactly is ChatGPT replacing your human proofreader and why did you need one at all?

This statement here is what I'm asking about:

> The first insight is that an article that I need to publish could be proofread immediately while before I used an incredible professional content editor that could take hours for reviewing and improving the article.

Don't you have to double check the output anyway and how is that proofreading?

[wslh]

The answer is simple and we can use computational complexity as an example: you have an NP problem and once you have a solution you can check the solution in polynomial time.

In my example: I can create content easily but not proofread it as easy as ChatGPT. Once ChatGPT comes out with a solution I can check if the solution is correct or not. Is this complex to understand? If you are a writer you can write quickly but need an editor to help you to improve your text, once your editor give you ideas you can use or discard them. Some of the ideas your editor gives you will never come from you or require more thinking that stops your writing flow.

[worksonmine]

So you're not using ChatGPT to do your proofreading, because you proofread ChatGPT yes? That's my question, not if it saves you time writing.

I don't claim the autocomplete in my editor is validating or testing my code, to use your own analogy.

I still don't feel you're answering my question, but the lack of an answer is also an answer in a sense.