Indeed, this is an assisted brain storming tool, not automated problem solving where you're supposed to trust the result wholesale.
For work I used ChatGPT to write a very specific programming problem and it wasn't a solution you'd ever copy/paste...the lack of context to the surrounding system means that's impractical 99% of the time outside of toy problems.
But it was still super useful for getting my brain working and suggesting a really good basic structure it would have taken me 3-4 failure cycles to get to.
The same exists in DALL-E/GPT for corporate art generation, writing 'essays', or stories or w/e. It's almost never producing the end product (besides toy problems).
So, if it can't do that in the first place, why evaluate it as if that's what it's supposed to be?
For work I used ChatGPT to write a very specific programming problem and it wasn't a solution you'd ever copy/paste...the lack of context to the surrounding system means that's impractical 99% of the time outside of toy problems.
But it was still super useful for getting my brain working and suggesting a really good basic structure it would have taken me 3-4 failure cycles to get to.
The same exists in DALL-E/GPT for corporate art generation, writing 'essays', or stories or w/e. It's almost never producing the end product (besides toy problems).
So, if it can't do that in the first place, why evaluate it as if that's what it's supposed to be?