To underline the point, it got it wrong in exactly the same way 95% of current frontend developers do.
I think it's a good reminder how perfectly mediocre current AI is. That doesn't make it useless though: I'm way below mediocre in several things I need to do on most weeks in my work, so in those areas AI can be a great help.
Maybe it did. But what's newsworthy about it? Is it really news that ChatGPT gets stuff wrong? If every person on this thread posts one article to HN describing how they asked a question to ChatGPT and it got it wrong, does that make this site better or worse?
This article is as newsworthy as a model card from OpenAI hyping their latest model as more "thoughtful" and "safer" and whatever other bogus criteria they claim to boost their valuation. This type of real-world experience reports offset the overblown hype and marketing surrounding these tools.
So, yes, they're very much needed and important, even if the conversations around it are repetitive. You're free to ignore them.
> OpenAI hyping their latest model as more "thoughtful" and "safer" and whatever other bogus criteria they claim to boost their valuation.
If this is true, it's a valid criticism. I hear you. I think it is downright thoughtless to mislead the layman into thinking LLMs can be "thoughtful" by anthropomorphizing them! To all companies that are doing this, seriously, stop dressing up a statistical token generator as if it's some kind of sentient philosopher.
I think it's a good reminder how perfectly mediocre current AI is. That doesn't make it useless though: I'm way below mediocre in several things I need to do on most weeks in my work, so in those areas AI can be a great help.