News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact P... by dboreham on Monday March 20, 2023 @09:46AM (#35231418)
This has been my experience: Chat GPT is astonishing in terms of producing plausible natural language text that looks related to the question. That's an astounding achievement imho. It does not (and I suspect wasn't expected to) produce correct answers to questions.
Re:GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact P... by pwinnski on Monday March 20, 2023 @11:33AM (#35233085)
I had an extended back-and-forth in which I asked ChatGPT how to undo mistakenly marking a message as junk in Messages on iOS.

It gave me a 7-step answer that was completely wrong. Then I said no, you can't do that, it apologized and gave me an 8-step answer that was completely wrong. When I pointed out in this case there is no "Junk" folder in iOS Messages, it apologized for the confusion and gave me another 8-step answer that was completely wrong. When I pointed out why that one wouldn't work, it gave up and said recovery was impossible and that I would need to contact the sender to re-send, and be more careful when marking messages as junk. This was still wrong, as recovery is possible, just not by any of the means it described.

So yeah, I have been super-impressed by the quality of output from these LLMs, but I cannot imagine actually relying on one for anything where correctness matters.

Giving me a nice list of Korean shoegaze bands, sure. Its step-by-step for how to become a better volleyball player will be great for my daughter, and was better than the answer to the same question from Google. But correctness? No.