Yes. A huge difference between hallucinating incorrect information that was stolen from actual creators and using it to write incorrect information stolen from actual creators.
If you were a writer and I helped you with research, e.g. I suggest an adjective to you at your request that you even dismiss after some pondering, then is it correct to say that you used me to write for you? Is it the same as if I was your ghostwriter?
My point is not that ChatGPT for research is awesome, but that the article’s headline and OP’s conclusion are very misleading. While I can relate to that enthusiasm, I don’t believe in mincing down a source to my narrative. It’s even counter-productive to spread awareness about ChatGPT’s incorrectness using an incorrect takeaway from someone’s statements…
Yes. A huge difference between hallucinating incorrect information that was stolen from actual creators and using it to write incorrect information stolen from actual creators.
If you were a writer and I helped you with research, e.g. I suggest an adjective to you at your request that you even dismiss after some pondering, then is it correct to say that you used me to write for you? Is it the same as if I was your ghostwriter?
My point is not that ChatGPT for research is awesome, but that the article’s headline and OP’s conclusion are very misleading. While I can relate to that enthusiasm, I don’t believe in mincing down a source to my narrative. It’s even counter-productive to spread awareness about ChatGPT’s incorrectness using an incorrect takeaway from someone’s statements…