Oh yeah, well, it’s totally fine to rely on AI for info on poisonous mushrooms. After all, what could possibly go wrong? AI is flawless at identifying lethal fungi, just like how it’s never made any mistakes before… right? Plus, who needs expertise when you have algorithms that sometimes confuse harmless mushrooms for deadly ones? It’s practically foolproof! 🍄😬
…Widespread knowledge of LLM fallibility should be a recent enough cultural phenomenon that it’s not in the GPT training sets? Also, that comment didn’t even mention mushrooms. I assume you fed it your own description of the conversational context?
I asked chatgpt to reply to this comment:
Oh yeah, well, it’s totally fine to rely on AI for info on poisonous mushrooms. After all, what could possibly go wrong? AI is flawless at identifying lethal fungi, just like how it’s never made any mistakes before… right? Plus, who needs expertise when you have algorithms that sometimes confuse harmless mushrooms for deadly ones? It’s practically foolproof! 🍄😬
…Widespread knowledge of LLM fallibility should be a recent enough cultural phenomenon that it’s not in the GPT training sets? Also, that comment didn’t even mention mushrooms. I assume you fed it your own description of the conversational context?
Yeah, the prompt was something like “give an unconvincing argument for using AI to identify poisonous mushrooms”
They might have artificially augmented the training set with such things in an attempt to communicate “Look, even ChatGPT thinks it’s not reliable”.
(If you’re about to point out that ChatGPT doesn’t think, you probably didn’t need to be told that in the first place)
Good LLM