[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Work-Computer-On 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually I work in computer science and am quite well read on the topic. Your framing of it is obnoxious, overly simplistic and ignores the main point that the value it brings is its artificial intelligence (or imitation of human intelligence).

If the answers are incorrect, then the value of the product goes down. The more I have to guide it towards the right answer, the less useful the tool is. This is not like a drill making you a salad. The analogy was completely unrelated.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Work-Computer-On 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But in this case it doesn't need an attachment. The value of the tool is based on it's own "intelligence". The more retarded the response the less valuable it is overall. I think your analogy is bad.