5 ms·
>Except it was never claimed to be any of those things. Not by its inventors, but by its management-type evangelists. Which do you think the mayor had in his e
by NextHendrix 3y ago
>Except it was never claimed to be any of those things.
Not by its inventors, but by its management-type evangelists. Which do you think the mayor had in his ear?
- hef19898 3y agoConisdering the people I know that use ChatGPT to summerize SEC filings for them, I think those disclaimers are mostly ignored.
- deltree7 3y agosummarizing is different from generating and different from searching
- eropple 3y agoCould you remind me what the "G" in "GPT" means?
- deltree7 3y agoWow!, do you know what the Ms in 3M mean?
- eropple 3y agoI do, as it happens. But your snippy response isn't responsive to the core of the concept to which my question referred. "Pulling in a chunk of content and probabilistically summarizing it is somehow not generative work" does not make pass the sniff test. And "probabilistically" is load-bearing there: you are reliant on probabilistic weights to not have that generated summary turn out to be hogwash.
- TremendousJudge 3y agoIt isn't guaranteed to be accurate for any of these cases, so the difference is irrelevant here.
- sbassi 3y agosummarize a given text is a valid task for this tool.
- hef19898 3y agoConsidering the results, in that case, is at least negligent.