<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sandgiant</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s even more astonishing (depressing?) to me how little credit people give humans these days. If the consensus is that ChatGPT pretty much passes for a human, my definition of a human is very different from that of the consensus. At the very least I&amp;#x27;d like my humans to exhibit even minimal capacity for emotional expression as well as consistency and honesty.&lt;p&gt;I can&amp;#x27;t even believe I&amp;#x27;m even spelling this out. What is the point of associating anything even remotely human with a chatbot like ChatGPT? I really don&amp;#x27;t get it. What benefit do we get from this? If anything is confuses us in ways that makes it more difficult to understand and argue about AI specifically, and technology generally.&lt;p&gt;ChatGPT is being grossly misinterpreted, and it&amp;#x27;s a shame, really, because it&amp;#x27;s such a cool piece of software.</text><parent_chain><item><author>kristiandupont</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were &amp;quot;good, but sortof basic&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with &amp;quot;meh, it&amp;#x27;s not a genius&amp;quot;. It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;imgs.search.brave.com&amp;#x2F;YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5SghAh1p0XPjTGU&amp;#x2F;rs:fit:1200:1124:1&amp;#x2F;g:ce&amp;#x2F;aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp&amp;#x2F;bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp&amp;#x2F;Z2luYWxzLzNhLzdm&amp;#x2F;Lzg3LzNhN2Y4NzA2&amp;#x2F;M2MxOWVkNjUzZDYz&amp;#x2F;ZTI5Mzg2OWE3MWJl&amp;#x2F;LnBuZw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;imgs.search.brave.com&amp;#x2F;YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>codingdave</author><text>I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I&amp;#x27;m simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened.&lt;p&gt;ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn&amp;#x27;t know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a subject you know well it is sometimes laughable how wrong it is.&lt;p&gt;It is impressive. But not trustworthy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder</title><url>https://www.atomic14.com/2022/12/05/using-chatgpt-as-a-co-founder.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>indigochill</author><text>I like GPT-3 a lot, but there&amp;#x27;s an important distinction between &amp;quot;plausible conversation&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;trustworthy answers&amp;quot;. ChatGPT is probably best in the world in the &amp;quot;plausible conversation&amp;quot; category.&lt;p&gt;But you might say ChatGPT is like talking to a human who actually knows nothing about finance but doesn&amp;#x27;t let that stop them (and for that matter, if you wanted to anthropomorphize it, you could say part of the problem is ChatGPT literally &amp;quot;believes&amp;quot; everything it reads online - and you can easily make it &amp;quot;believe&amp;quot; anything through leading wording, which I think is a strong tool for strengthening the Turing test, since no human will respond that way). Sometimes they might luck into being correct, but you wouldn&amp;#x27;t want to base any information on what they say.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if I actually wanted reliable finance advice, a scripted finance chatbot would still win because those answers are written by people who do know what they&amp;#x27;re talking about.</text><parent_chain><item><author>kristiandupont</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were &amp;quot;good, but sortof basic&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with &amp;quot;meh, it&amp;#x27;s not a genius&amp;quot;. It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;imgs.search.brave.com&amp;#x2F;YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5SghAh1p0XPjTGU&amp;#x2F;rs:fit:1200:1124:1&amp;#x2F;g:ce&amp;#x2F;aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp&amp;#x2F;bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp&amp;#x2F;Z2luYWxzLzNhLzdm&amp;#x2F;Lzg3LzNhN2Y4NzA2&amp;#x2F;M2MxOWVkNjUzZDYz&amp;#x2F;ZTI5Mzg2OWE3MWJl&amp;#x2F;LnBuZw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;imgs.search.brave.com&amp;#x2F;YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>codingdave</author><text>I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I&amp;#x27;m simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened.&lt;p&gt;ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn&amp;#x27;t know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a subject you know well it is sometimes laughable how wrong it is.&lt;p&gt;It is impressive. But not trustworthy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder</title><url>https://www.atomic14.com/2022/12/05/using-chatgpt-as-a-co-founder.html</url></story>