The real irony is not noticing that this is the standard way people use ChatGPT and instead saying "you're using it wrong" - which is a convenient holier-than-thou argument that ignores the negative repercussions of this technology that we are literally observing and commenting on. If this is what ChatGPT mostly leads to - a wild amplification of fake news - then it's also ironic that OpenAI is claiming to make the world a better place.

GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it - as a shortcut for doing any real research or work. This inevitably leads to misinformation being spread and it's palpable how often I see people cite ChatGPT's hallucinations as confirmation of their own bias. I really don't give a fuck about how people should use it compared to how they are using it. You cannot manifest a different reality with aphorisms.

I'm not claiming this is a worthless technology with no positive benefits. I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.

> I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.

> GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it

the enormous negative effects are just perfectly normal human behavior, amplified. better to deal with the root cause than continue to act like technology is the danger.

There is a consistent inconsistency which is that people think because a model was trained “on the Internet” it “knows everything” on it.

Hardly.

The structure is well known, and is neither what is being argued in the lawsuit, or asked from ChatGPT. I am not commenting on the merits of it, that is for the courts.

So what is your take? Are they on it for Profit or to save Humanity? Should we nominate already Sam Altman and Reid Hoffman for the Nobel Peace this year?