Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Imo ChatGPT doesn't need to hold its own, and the fact that it can be mislead is no different to me than the fact that my childhood bully can edit Wikipedia all day long if he wants to. Noone references Wikipedia in research papers, since we've been taught not to, when handing in our first schoolwork at age 10. It's still an amazing tool, and the greatest miracle knowledgebase of mankind, despite containing false information.

Google and ChatGPT have different value, like a welding robot and a conveyor belt. Why not use both?

I actually think Stackoverflow and Quora should offer a ChatGPT answer before posting, just as a gimmick. It shouldn't be meant to give you a definitive answer, but just try and lead you to keywords you might have not even known to consider googling, before you post duplicate of #43527 for the "n+1"-th time. Because, again, why not both?




> Noone references Wikipedia in research papers, since we've been taught not to, when handing in our first schoolwork at age 10.

Proper teacher would've said the article's references are fine to use though. ChatGPT can't back its claims, but both Wikipedia and Google can.

With the advent of AI-generated garbage, garbage going to be fed into the same models, it's going to have a rocky, treacherous path forward.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: