This is illogical. The popularity surrounding gptx stems from the fact it produces great output for many people. That is the only rational explanation for why it's popular.

One reason that it may not produce good output for you is that you may just be a really smart person. The answers it gives you just seem too stupid to you because you're just so incredibly intelligent that any response it gives seems useless.

Other people like me who aren't as smart as you feel the output is at times relevant and at other times irrelevant. It's not a total waste of time to most of the population as we aren't as smart as you.

In fact smart people like you including the preeminent AI guy Geoffrey Hinton who repopularized AI in the last decade thinks LLMs are trivial in the same way you think of it. Or maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe it's not so clear cut as "total waste of time."

> feel the output is

We have given you books, we have given you masterpieces...

I'm not smart enough to figure out how this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

You said LLMs produce absolute rubbish always for you. How does humans creating books or masterpieces have any effect on LLM output?

Apologies for not being smart enough to understand you.

You want to be "«smart»" (you should: you do not live isolated, you have responsibilities in the community): learn from the Masterpieces. We have given you ways: the Books are there to refine your intellect feeding your natural effort towards growth.

Smarten up and you'll appreciate the real things.

Have you heard of sarcasm?

I have heard of the mandate to "strongest possible interpretation in assumption of good faith" after the guidelines. They made it preferable to take your approach literally instead of referring it to a form of rhetoric which appears of dubious appropriateness here.

Your interpretation is correct. No sarcasm in my statements and only a reference to it in my question. This was a genuine question for a point I have yet to make... In which you did not apply your mandate.

It is also possible that they think they understood the answer when they did not.

I got impressed when GPT-4 was able to explain "TVC" from Permutation City.

> The popularity surrounding gptx stems from the fact it produces great output for many people.

Popular != Good

So everything that's popular is bad?

That's highly irrational and illogical. You are not thinking properly.

Popular can equal good or bad.

You're making my point for me.

I don't think you fully understand your own point.

Many of the first times I used a hammer I hit my own fingers. That doesn't mean a hammer is a bad tool, it meant I had to learn how to use it.

Other people get value out of these tools.

No but hype tends to suggest that a tool can do everything and being bombarded by that kind of propaganda is annoying.