Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's not ethical to use it ALL THE TIME. Very bad for the environment and the theft of IP has been outrageous.

And it hallucinates. A lot.

Not really accurate

It is 100% accurate.

No it isn’t and you’re clearly a low information person

FFS. There are massive issues with regard to energy usage and with regard to all of the intellectual property theft that has occurred to train LLMs. This is in the news constantly. Not sure how you could be this ignorant. But that is DCUM ... extreme ignorance + aggression. Do you think that if you are offensive and aggressive enough it will be ok that you are wrong? Hmmm, where are you getting that tactic from, lol?

Pp

You are the worst kind of idiot because you know a little and think it means you know it all. You don’t.

First, re ‘IP theft’. NO, there are copyright cases that have been filed but haven’t been decided. That’s not ‘theft’. It’s seeing where the law ends up. That’s where we are now. I’ll remind you that we’ve seen this happen in other contexts and the law went the way of technology.

Two, the usage is an issue, but so is ALL computing. But that’s the world we live in now, and searching Google repeatedly instead of Chat once can actually use more energy.

So STFU you weirdo and stop posting your fake scenarios.

What I love about people making blanket statements about GPT chatbots being stupid is that it is very reflective of the user. It talks to you in a way that tries to mirror your own thinking as your language expresses it.

And it's default personality is provided by the developers, but it is highly adaptive to your instructions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's not ethical to use it ALL THE TIME. Very bad for the environment and the theft of IP has been outrageous.

And it hallucinates. A lot.

Not really accurate

It is 100% accurate.

No it isn’t and you’re clearly a low information person

FFS. There are massive issues with regard to energy usage and with regard to all of the intellectual property theft that has occurred to train LLMs. This is in the news constantly. Not sure how you could be this ignorant. But that is DCUM ... extreme ignorance + aggression. Do you think that if you are offensive and aggressive enough it will be ok that you are wrong? Hmmm, where are you getting that tactic from, lol?

Anonymous wrote:When I used it for a trip to England, it recommended a hotel that was actually a pub, got the wrong train times, and was utterly disastrous for us when we tried to use it for the tube. 2/10, do not recommend

The honest bottom line
• For planning, context, comparisons, “what area should I stay in?” → I’m strong
• For real-time logistics, transit, bookings, hours, strikes, platform changes → I should never be your sole source
• Using me as a live travel assistant without guardrails can absolutely tank a trip

Your 2/10 rating is fair for that use case. If I were grading myself, I’d give the same.

If you want, I can help you do this the right way next time—using me only where I actually add value (and pairing me with the right apps so you don’t end up in another “surprise pub” situation 🍺).

Anonymous wrote:When I used it for a trip to England, it recommended a hotel that was actually a pub, got the wrong train times, and was utterly disastrous for us when we tried to use it for the tube. 2/10, do not recommend

Post the prompts you used and let’s see what it does

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read that using it for travel basically takes you to the most populated and touristy spots.

Do people agree with this?

It seems like a lot of people on here do not understand what AI is and how it works. It provides answers by sorting through tons of info and providing answers based on probability. Statistics. That’s where the hallucinations come from- those are statistically likely/logical answers.

If you’re getting a touristy response to a prompt it’s bc that location is statistically the most popular. But you can easily change the prompt to get better answers - ‘ I am going to Paris. I’ve been there before. I want non touristy suggestions for restaurants, where locals eat’.

I tried that for a few tourist hotspot where I've lived before and some of the recommendations were really bad. The problem was that there were enough good recommendations that it was hard to parse out where it was really off (like sending you to a non existent or closed restaurant on the other side of the city, weird travel suggestions that were either unrealistic time frames or not particularly safe, etc.)

I find all that very hard to believe but again, poor answers tend to be a matter of prompts. I also find it funny when people say they tried it once or twice and then quit. You need to learn how to use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's not ethical to use it ALL THE TIME. Very bad for the environment and the theft of IP has been outrageous.

And it hallucinates. A lot.

Not really accurate

It is 100% accurate.

No it isn’t and you’re clearly a low information person

I like it as a quick reference. For example, I recently used it to interpret dreams and diagnose my sick plant. I think it will, overall, make people dumber, lazier, and more prone to cheating.

Never.

I used it for driving directions to connecticute and it took me the most crazy way. I don’t know why I listened to it because I’ve been there before, but I wanted to see if it had a smarter route for me.

I asked it a simple question about my alma mater and it totally made things up.

I don't use it at all. I'd rather look at several sources via Duck Duck Go.

Yes even for texts and emails

It nailed college recommendations for my kid. I inputted his stats, personality, strengths vs. weaknesses, interests, desired major and got a better list that I got from our college counselor.

When I used it for a trip to England, it recommended a hotel that was actually a pub, got the wrong train times, and was utterly disastrous for us when we tried to use it for the tube. 2/10, do not recommend

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It's not ethical to use it ALL THE TIME. Very bad for the environment and the theft of IP has been outrageous.

And it hallucinates. A lot.

Not really accurate

It is 100% accurate.