You willingly give them key points of information about yourself, directly or indirectly. They then read those signals and use your own information against you to convince you they have answers. And they are often wrong, but you walk around repeating their “insights” as if they are true.
Cool. You’re different, you’re not like the other girls…
You seem to have main character syndrome though. You think your edge case (or the claimed example of your friend as a professional foolishly trusting their future to the hallucinating robot) is the thing that drives this AI moment, but no. The VAST majority of marketed use cases and associated revenue gained from the BROAD population is for much more trivial applications.
You also need a little more ability to process an abstract thought here, the “customer” of the palm reader here is not me or any individual. It’s humanity collectively. We tell it about what “the catcher in the rye” is and it steals and internalizes that human work. It then, very often, incorrectly reinterprets human thought back to us, but while mentioning enough minor details, which we provided prior, for it to better convince us of its confident lies.
Starting off with an insult, nice.
“claimed” ??? As if I’m making up a story because I’m being paid by Sam Altman?
“Trusting their future to hallucinating”
My sales support engineering friend of course didn’t just copy whatever chatgpt wrote. He proofread it and fixed it. It still saved hours over starting from nothing and then still needing to proofread.
I SAID IT WON’T THINK FOR YOU.