[drewbug01]

If someone is taking the time to refute ChatGPT’s output and telling you why the answer isn’t applicable in a given situation, it certainly implies that ChatGPT wasn’t “correct enough” at all.

What situations do you think it’s fine to be “correct enough?”

[paulcole]

But this person says they want to refute it in every situation.

Some people seem to make a hobby of refuting the output of others. So no, I don’t trust the implication that if somebody spends time refuting it that it must be worth refuting.

In my experience (with both people-output and ChatGPT-output) my goal is to not refute anything unless it absolutely positively must be refuted. If it’s a low-stakes situation where another person has an idea that seems like it might/will probably work, let them go nuts and give it a shot. I’ll offer quick feedback or guiding questions but I have 0 interest in refuting it even if I think there’s a chance it’ll go wrong. They can learn by doing.

[Aeolun]

> But this person says they want to refute it in every situation.

No. You read that I want to refute its output in every situation.

Obviously I don’t have to do that if ChatGPT is correct, but people don’t generally quote ChatGPT at you if it’s just confirmed what you already said.

[paulcole]

Yes. I read that because that’s what you said:

> I don’t think I’m haughty when I don’t want to try and convey 20 years of experience in a few sentences every time some quotes chatgpt?

Could you explain how “every time some[one] quotes chatgpt” should be read as “not every time some[one] quotes chatgpt”?