I find it fascinating that this is still making the rounds. When I read this it was immediately obvious that the author was using a non-web enabled AI which was just hallucinating; there were none of the inline indications that GPT was using the web. Additionally, it must be an old model; even the cheapest, lowest powered models on chatgpt.com today search the web when I ask them questions about articles as the author did. (I just signed out of chatgpt.com to get the worst available model, and it does summarize the linked article correctly.) Note that link to the transcript on chatgpt.com is provided, even though it's trivial to create a shared link to a conversation.
I am confused about what to take away from the article. It feels akin to someone reading a book for the first time, it ends up being "Harry Potter", and they somehow get 10,000 likes on Substack because they took it literally and crashed into the wall when they tried to walk into platform 9 3/4. Am I being unfair? Are these the same people that are claiming that AI is all a sham and will have no impact on society?
I am confused about what to take away from the article. It feels akin to someone reading a book for the first time, it ends up being "Harry Potter", and they somehow get 10,000 likes on Substack because they took it literally and crashed into the wall when they tried to walk into platform 9 3/4. Am I being unfair? Are these the same people that are claiming that AI is all a sham and will have no impact on society?