Sure it seems great at writing boilerplate code, unfortunately it’s really good and writing the kind of bugs that you don’t notice. This is maddening in a completely novel way, like working with an actively malicious autocomplete.

Not understanding the fallibility of LLM is not the fault of the technology. It’s the user’s fault.

Not at all like a con artist. More like a tool that can be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated. That is a very large set of human tools, from nuclear reaction to pharmaceuticals to the automobile. Perhaps we just need “drivers ed” for large language models.

This doesn’t make them useless in general, just a poor fit if you can’t easily fact check the results.

In google you would go to another search result.

For ChatGPT you actually need to verify via Google or actually try it when it is code.

There's already an example of it in the article where it incorrectly stated the tritone of F was Bb.

It’s a tool. It has flaws. It can be useful and if it is, have at it.

Similarly, if ChatGPT gives you an answer high in truthiness but low in accuracy, it could negatively impact you, whether loss in credibility if you repeat nonsense in front of someone knowledgable, or even worse if you use the incorrect knowledge to try to solve a real world problem.

It's like Babelfish, but for monoglots.