I appreciated the reporters's angle here -- if computers are so central to things like rocket science because they can reliably do complex calculations, why is supposedly "advanced" #ChatGPT so unreliable?
>>
I want to set the record straight on one thing though. I do NOT "wonder" if #ChatGPT could be improved to be more accurate. The reporter asked me if it could be made more accurate and I said I don't think so. Not the same.
I respectfully disagree for two reasons: (1) XAI (explainable artificial intelligence) is a very active research field for exactly this reason - to get the kind of introspection that one needs to get things right. But even if your statement is limited to the current state of GPT type models (2) it only takes the very minimal step of connecting the output to a bog-standard search engine to get sourced and referenced information. And that is current reality with search engines like Neeva, Phind and Perplexity.
Also, "not designed to get things right"? I prefer to think of it as superimposed truths - I have called that "Schrödinger Facts" https://sentientsyllabus.substack.com/p/chatgpts-achilles-heel - and explain there why even this level of factuality is not useless.
