There's immense value in ChatGPT's answers, you just need to accept that it's fallible.

I think most of the critique is coming from the people that made their mind up already or used only GPT-3.5 in the past.

Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: a) "ChatGPT is stupid! Also, plagiarism! No value!" b) " I wrote a carelessly bad prompt and it responded with a seemingly bad answer!" c) " This confirms my biases!"

I find that when I provide it with enough context and a set of requirements (as I would with a non-AI engineer), it's very good at problem solving.

How does the issue of plagiarism bear on its utility? That’s like saying it’s impossible to get value out of listening to a torrented mp3.

I’m not sure understanding is an inherent issue either. When I Google ”weather lisbon,” Google spits out a number. The app doesn’t ”understand” anything, but it still helps me plan my day.

> automated plagiarism without understanding anything

I'm old enough to remember the memes campaigning to rename "software engineering" to "googling StackOverflow"

> there can not be in LLM as it's just automated plagiarism without understanding anything.

Conjecture. We lack a mechanistic understanding of "understanding", so you can't make this claim. Human answers are also fallible, so how do you know that human cognition isn't also statistical pattern matching similar to what's used in LLMs?