I would never trust the output from it to use it as a search.
But for quickly creating some template when i want to write a big report or email for something, then yes it's very useful.
But for quickly creating some template when i want to write a big report or email for something, then yes it's very useful.
ChatGPT is about as accurate as random websites on the internet, and you don’t get obliterated with ads.
Simple example, ChatGPT will give you a clear recipe for whatever you want, sans life story designed to make you scroll past a million ads.
I could specify for it to use MDN exclusively but at that point I might as well use search.
In addition to that I could judge the quality of search results (a lot vs little mentions of a technology, shady vs reputable site etc.) to make educated guess of the output I'm getting from search. Can't do that with GPT.
These are key differences off the top of my head.
In general, the context of search gives some insight into the credibility of the source.
The only reason those blobs of text exist is to get you to look at more ads. Put more things in your head against your will, sell you more garbage, and manipulate your feelings.
If it wasn’t true, why are the recipes always at the bottom? Why not put the most valuable part right front and center? These websites have no respect for you and likely copy pasted the recipe anyways.
Only way to know if a recipe is good is to look at it.
You don’t. But i’dtrust a top rated Stackoverflow answer over whatever LLM spits out.
There is no “confidence score” from an LLM output. You cannot tell whether it is making things up (and potentially make very bad decisions based on it’s output)
https://community.openai.com/t/new-assistants-api-a-potentia...
Try something more complicated! Ask for a gingerbread recipe without sugar, for example.
I think I'll ask it for a calzone recipe this weekend. The one I use now makes the dough a little too bready.
It's not very good at it, but it doesn't need to be, to be far better than I am.
People have some sense that someone giving them information may be an {expert, charlatan, idiot}, or that a website they’re looking at is run by a university vs a blogspam content farm, but many have not developed a sense for when or how much they can trust LLM output, which is delivered with the same tone and confidence regardless of whether it’s entirely fabricated.
There is probably a component of personality involved in how people approach this. Collectively we are all learning how to interact with this new source of information and people take varying paths.
I've had ChatGPT return very serviceable "true" results and I've had ChatGPT return utter fiction.
1. you don't know the answer, but you can check yourself and easily whether a given answer is roughly correct
2. you don't know the answer and wouldn't be able to check how valid a potential answer is
LLM-based tools are great for 1 to synthesize various sources into one coherent answer, since in this case, you won't become a victim of their hallucination. E.g. "write a one-off Python script to do this": you can quickly check if it does the job, even though you couldn't say whether that's idiomatic Python.
I would say it is not good at giving a sophisticated answer to anything that requires a lot of nuance. And I've also asked it questions with fairly objective factual answers that it gets hilariously wrong.