Thanks for the Wikipedia analogy, given another five years of time for refinement, ChaGPT will be viewed/used similar to Wikipedia.
it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility .
> Can you really trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Well, yes and no -- it's a bit like a traditional encyclopedia in that way.
> The key point to observe is that two decades on, we're still using it, a lot, and the trite observation that it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility. Nor have repeated observations to that effect tended to generate much intellectually stimulating conversation.
it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility .
> Can you really trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Well, yes and no -- it's a bit like a traditional encyclopedia in that way.
> The key point to observe is that two decades on, we're still using it, a lot, and the trite observation that it "could be wrong" has had next to no bearing on its social utility. Nor have repeated observations to that effect tended to generate much intellectually stimulating conversation.