I would say that training implies an update of the weights, at a minimum. I would accept fine-tuning GPT-3 as training, but not prompting.

I think that "chat bot" is less objectionable, but it presents a bit of a misleading picture to a casual reader. I think people ascribe a lot more agency to a "chat bot" than they would to a "next word predictor".

> What is the minimal level of effort required for it to count as 'training an AI chatbot' for you?

Isn't GPT-3 already capable of acting like a chatbot out of the box? The article implies that it was trained to be like a younger Michelle from the journal entries, but all the responses presented seem to be utterly generic. Talk about dreams and hardships but not anything concrete, no mention of friends and family, locations or activities. I don't know enough about GPT-3 to say if the training affected word choice, but it doesn't seem to have any discernible depth at all.