Thanks for pointing that out, I'll add it to the list of words I'm supposed to use to sound smart.
However, I did find the main argument compelling, through my own waste of time (yes I learned it the hard way) I've come to acknowledge that the tradeoff for prompting GPT in order to get a valuable answer, is just not worth it.
However, it does seem that most of the people are intrigued by "it can answer anything with the right prompt" promise, and they devote a lot of time in order to fulfill it.
You cannot trust GPT, you cannot rely on it and it can't replace anyone, until it learns to prompt itself.
I think what this article really implies is that - we the humans are doing the quality assurance for the GPT answers, if we take that out of the equation, and we don't give it quality prompts, etc.
I'm no linguist but it seems to me that that word doesn't really work for that definition. It sounds like it should pertain to hidden form, not hidden similar form, like say, cryptoisomorphic.
You're right there. It's amusing to me because I suspect it is difficult or impossible to meaningfully define "obvious". In my head, it matches "cryptozoology", where the "crypto" denotation kind of includes "pseudoscience".
But also "hidden shape" has a loose implication of "hidden equivalent shape".
