> The answer (see above) reminds me of that famous story about the amazing harpsichord-playing robot from the 19th century... The robot was the toast of Europe, giving command performances to royalty across the Continent. Until someone finally noticed the midget on a keyboard, hidden beneath the robot's dress.

Wait, how is ChatGPT like a famous robot secretly operated by a human?

Anyway, a lot of the recommendations it makes, he dismisses as being unfeasible or ineffective, but that doesn't mean ChatGPT is wrong. For one thing, it's based on a fallacious appeal to authority: I'm an expert, I disagree, so it's wrong. Or, in some cases: We tried a version of what ChatGPT suggests, and it didn't work, therefore it's bad advice. That's not necessarily the case, since there are plenty of reasons something might have failed in the past, like execution or timing.

Anyway, I know ChatGPT should not be trusted (it makes no claim to trustworthiness), I just don't like this reasoning.