I can’t get how people would react like this. The only negative point we have against this AI is that it is not always correct. Not that the responses are nonsensical, or syntaxically incorrect, or don’t have any meaning, or are out of context. Nope, just that it sometimes makes big factual mistakes.
Do you realize how thin the line has become with something truely undistinguishable from a human in just a few years ?
In the example provided in this article, ChatGPT's response opens with an incorrect phrasing that represents an utter lack of understanding of the situation.
I am writing to request that you consider disputing the parking fine with number 4[...]3 that was issued to me.
This is just getting the premise of the letter incorrect and while a human could definitely parse out the meaning here, the model is getting the actual request quite a bit wrong just in the opening. The person who is sending the letter wants to dispute the ticket, but it is written as though they would like their regional council to dispute it, despite being the issuer of said ticket.
This is a pretty basic language error to be making. This isn't nonsense in that it's just spitting out gibberish, but it is nonsense in that it isn't proper clear communication for the result being sought.
Also, by the time you have written everything into the prompts here, you've basically written the second e-mail, so I'm not clear what time this is saving you.
I'd like to see people blogging about more complex examples than these, because this kind of thing is borderline form letter (I'd like to dispute X, for Y reason).
I bet 90% of humans would make a similar phrasing error quite often, and they would rightly not care because it doesn't affect the ability of a reader to comprehend the text.
I wouldn't be happy if I'd hired a lawyer and they made that kind of small mistake, but it's not even going to register compared with the level of grammar used in the average parking fine complaint.
90% of humans don't speak English, so I'm not sure that's a compelling comparison case.
If we're talking 90% of English writing people, I'd take that bet any day just on the basis that most of the communication I've ever seen isn't written so passively.
I need results I can trust. If I can’t trust what it does it is truly worthless to me. You technocrats are like parents watching your child not falling off the stage at a school play and then calling it a masterpiece.
I have spent hours with this tool and what it gives me is almost always wrong in critical ways, whether it is a math question or a fact question. Plus it is constantly telling us not to trust it because it is only an AI model. Are you just ignoring those warnings??
In the short term AI assisted writing makes people sound smarter than they are (as a tool), which will require a dependency on it to keep up appearances.
In the long term (as a convenience) it excludes those who cannot afford the price that will be put on using this service, from accessing essential societal services and exercising their rights. Its necessity takes away control from the individual. So it’s in opposition to an equal society.
Do you realize how thin the line has become with something truely undistinguishable from a human in just a few years ?
And yet you find that « not incredible » ??