and there are consequences if you're caught teaching rubbish
not to say they are perfect, but there is some level of quality control
meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
Human teachers can be audited without advanced knowledge in maths, computer science, and information theory to discover what went wrong.
Human teachers can be held accountable.
A Human teacher has limited scale thus limited damage over bad information with more safeguards than "Big Corp promises not to be bad"
A human teacher can realize their own mistakes.
Human teachers have complex incentive structures that can modify their behavior.
Many humans (even ones with technical training) tend to see computers as infailible in first principals of math and carry that forward to deep learning which is where the math becomes tough to audit, couple that with LLMs affinity for overcoming the uncanny valley enough to seem like a rational human actor because of the datasets being used and you have "magic". This is before you even add financial incentive.
Not saying these issues in deep learning can't be tackled but the disengenous hype-train and the downvoting because people point out flaws with the new internet ATM is wearing thin.
> meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
Sure there are, and more importantly there's also ways to "punish" the models themselves — that's what the "thumbs down" and "regenerate response" buttons in the chat UI are for.