Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyryt | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Can we have a line on the HN guidelines saying "telling people you asked about <topic> on ChatGPT doesn't make for interesting discussion. Please refrain from doing so."

Especially in this case where you don't even tell what did you find out, only that you did ask ChatGPT. Good for you.

It's the new LMGTFY

But posing as helpful instead of sarcastic, yet equally annoying.

Why feed yourself with potential misinformation that you don’t know the true source of and you might never double check?

> Why feed yourself with potential misinformation that you don’t know the true source of and you might never double check?

Because I enjoy reading HN?

When you run out of HN, do you hit up ChatGPT?

I ask ChatGPT to write me a comment thread in the style of Hacker News.

Oh, that was just too easy... :)

As opposed to? Unless you're actually going to read individual papers, vet the authors, have the baseline statistical knowledge to understand the results, etc, you're always going to be susceptible to potential misinformation. This HN topic is a good example of the difficulty of verifying information.

Who's to say that ChatGPT doesn't provide a better job of filtering it out?

Yes, I would start with Google Scholar, or at least Wikipedia because it tries to provide sources for each statement that it makes.

> Who’s to say that ChatGPT doesn’t provide a better job of filtering it out?

No one because no one knows what sources ChatGPT is blending together in its sentences.

> I would start with Google Scholar

You actually should vet everything you read through Google Scholar too. There is a pervasive belief of consensus in academic science and unfortunately individually verifying information is the only thing we know that actually works- not political consensus.

Because ChatGPT assembles letters into words and sentences without attribution and so is untrustworthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com