ChatGPT spin off from: What happens to the energy in destructive interference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anachronist
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion critically evaluates the reliability of ChatGPT in providing factual information. Users report frequent inaccuracies, particularly when requesting specific data such as the nearest door number to United Airlines baggage claim carousel #6 at San Francisco International Airport or functional OpenSCAD code. While some participants argue that ChatGPT excels in creative tasks, the consensus is that it often produces "hallucinations" rather than accurate facts, making it unreliable for scientific or technical inquiries. The debate highlights the limitations of AI in factual correctness compared to human intelligence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs)
  • Familiarity with AI-generated content limitations
  • Basic knowledge of programming languages, specifically OpenSCAD
  • Awareness of academic integrity issues related to AI usage
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the limitations of AI in providing factual information
  • Explore the differences between creative writing and factual accuracy in AI outputs
  • Learn about the implications of AI in academic settings and its impact on education
  • Investigate best practices for verifying AI-generated content
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, software developers, and anyone interested in the reliability of AI-generated information, particularly in academic and technical contexts.

  • #61
pbuk said:
nobody is disputing that Chat GPT often produces answers that are correct.
Um ... that's precisely what they are doing. That's the only thing I've been arguing. That it doesn't "almost always give the wrong factual answer". Which was the original claim.

It's nothing to do with AI or thinking. It's a dispute about whether ChatGPT is almost always wrong.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #62
PeroK said:
Um ... that's precisely what they are doing. That's the only thing I've been arguing. That it doesn't "almost always give the wrong factual answer". Which was the original claim.
My specific claim is that it is unreliable for factual information. I don’t claim “almost always” wrong, I claim “often” wrong.
 
  • #63
The OP did claim that though.
Anachronist said:
Every time I ask ChatGPT something factual, I ask it something that I can check myself, and the answer is almost always factually incorrect.
 
  • #64
Borg said:
The OP did claim that though.
Yes. They did.
 
  • #65
Dale said:
Edit: actually the answer is still wrong, but not as wrong as before.

At least it isn't "not even wrong". :smile:
 
  • #66
This thread is sounding an awful lot like arguing about "How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin."
 

Similar threads

High School What happens to the energy in destructive interference?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Plagiarism & ChatGPT: Is Cheating with AI the New Normal?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
10K
Destructive interference - What happens to the energy?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
In what way is "dark energy" more than "none of the above"?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Sticky
Physics Forums Global Guidelines
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
503K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K