You broke up one sentence to make a set of MAGA references that came out of nowhere, and then followed it up ignoring the previous parts and just saying how “…GPT magnanimously explains where its misunderstanding came from,” as if that obviates the problem of presenting a confidently incorrect answer. You also say that you have not personally seen a second occurrence which I know isn’t true because you participated in this thread where a poster repeatedly queried and got incorrect and even self-contradictory responses from an LLM.
You followed that up with another broken sentence quote regarding the lack of consequence, divorcing it from the rest of the sentence indicating that this is a problem because of the behavior that users engage in by pasting it into a work product without indicating that the source or verifying the information. Whether you regard this as a “people problem” or not, the reality is that this is very normal user behavior specifically because people are encouraged to use LLMs in this way to ‘efficiently’ produce blocks of text to be inserted into a report or other document without having to do their own research or think through how the text should be organized or whether it is an accurate portrayal, or indeed, that the factual content is correct.
In general, if you are breaking up a post into sentence fragments “for clarity of response”, what you are really doing is just sniping at the disconnected elements rather than presenting a complete counterargument even within the scope of a single statement. Even if you don’t believe it removes context to respond in that manner, it makes it very difficult to provide a rebuttal that isn’t also just a spastic sequence of disjointed thoughts, and that kind of back and forth quickly degrades into a litany of repetitive and sapless claims. So, again, please don’t break my posts into sentence fragments just because it is easy for you to jab at the disjointed pieces.
Stranger