If you tell GPT-4 specifically to respond with proper jargon for the domain like that found in a textbook or journal it provides much much more useful replies. Silly that prompt engineering is what's required but at least for my purposes wherein I fact check it's output it's right nearly all the time and I've learned a great deal.
Sure yeah, for now. Just saying I literally use it to mine out things to confirm (/ not believe until I do) and so far it has very rarely led me astray and even then it's been small nuance. It's striking.
Assuming you're serious and not just knee jerk reacting to the flippant way I replied, this is pretty much exactly what I meant. The full text of this short story I can't find a good link (old ones I've read are broken links now) but this reading on YouTube will suffice.
It doesn't mean it's less biased. All of these styles are exploited as a form of rhetoric. Many people simply take information written in a textbook style as authoritative.
And that's why I ignore the people that laugh at the whole prompt engineering thing, because it's a genuine skill.
At the moment GPTs are trained on so much data across so many domains that you have to treat it like a person who has similar knowledge.
If I just walk up to you and start sputtering jargon about a very specific complex topic, when you were just chatting to another friend about all sorts of everyday topics, you're not going to be able to reply to me immediately.
With these GPTs it helps to get it "in the mood" for your topic by preloading keywords and shifting the topic over and deeper so your desired topic is clearer to the attention mechanism.
