[OnlineGladiator]

The point you're missing is it's not always right. Cherry-picking examples doesn't really bolster your point.

Obviously it works for you (or at least you think it does), but I can confidently say it's fucking god-awful for me.

[glenstein]

>The point you're missing is it's not always right.

That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test.

They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.

[simianwords]

Am I really the one cherry picking? Please read the thread.

[OnlineGladiator]

Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people.

If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.

[simianwords]

The poster didn't use "thinking" model. That was my original challenge!!

Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?

[OnlineGladiator]

Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it.

If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.

[simianwords]

Share your examples so that it can be useful to everyone

[glenstein]

They just spent like six comments imploring you to understand that they were making a specific point: generally reliable on non-niche topics using thinking mode. And that nuance bounced off of you every single time as you keep repeating it's not perfect, dismiss those qualifications as cherry picking and repeat personal anecdotes.

I'm sorry but this is a lazy and unresponsive string of comments that's degrading the discussion.

[OnlineGladiator]

The neat thing about HN is we can all talk about stupid shit and disagree about what matters. People keep upvoting me, so I guess my thoughts aren't unpopular and people think it's adding to the discussion.

I agree this is a stupid comment thread, we just disagree about why.

[ninetyninenine]

Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.

[OnlineGladiator]

All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting.

How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?