[whimsicalism]

Your usage of 'GPTx' makes me think you are conflating chatgpt and GPT4. I find chatgpt useless, so hopefully that's not what you're talking about.

None of the things you are describing happen to me, especially if you do basic trust+verify which you should be doing for Google anyways.

[diputsmonro]

Could you explain the difference and how you use GPT4? If all you're doing is hitting the GPT4 api, I don't see how it's different.

And, of course, you wouldn't know that your mind is being poisoned with hallucinate half-truths. Maybe you can pick some out because of prior knowledge, but what about the ones you can't? What about the little things you learn that you don't deem important enough to verify, but then remember later without remembering that they snuck in through an untrusted source? That's precisely the danger - you can't accurately tell truth from fiction, and the stuff you already know isn't the stuff you're asking about (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)

[whimsicalism]

> Could you explain the difference and how you use GPT4? If all you're doing is hitting the GPT4 api, I don't see how it's different.

The difference is that the models are completely different? I don't really find that GPT-4 hallucinates all that frequently (only in very nitty gritty details rarely).

> And, of course, you wouldn't know that your mind is being poisoned with hallucinate half-truths

Okay, so it appears you have some non-falsifiable theory of mind that somehow renders Google better because my mind is being poisoned. Not sure what sort of appeal to objectivity I could use to demonstrate otherwise.

> the stuff you already know isn't the stuff you're asking about (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)

True for Google - less true for GPT4, who I ask to give me practice problems and worked solutions of various things I already know about to practice.