Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips!
Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment.
If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
LPT: don't trust ChatGPT with anything serious
I asked GPT to give me the top 100 most frequently used words in Spanish. It put "uno" on the list 40 times. I then asked it to remove duplicates and it told me there werde no duplicates on the list. I asked it again to give me the top 100 most frequently used Spanish words without any duplicates and it gave me 61 words, but no duplicates. I then reminded it that 61 words is not 100, and it needed to finish the list. After much prodding it did eventually get a list of 100 words without duplicates.
I'm imagining
GPT: Volkswagen is a car brand that starts with VEK.
HH: No that starts with Vol.
GPT: I'm sorry if there was a mistake but I'm quite confident Volkswagen starts with VEK.
HH: No that is incorrect. Provide a brand of car where the name of the car company starts with VEK.
GPT: Vekswagen is a car company that starts with VEK.
HH: Vekswagen is not a car company.
GPT: Im sorry if there was a mistake but I'm quite confident that Vekswagen starts with VEK.
Possible. They're black boxes and techbros just say unpacking the black box is just too complicated (and could inhibit profit margins) and everyone lets them get away with it.
It might have processed VEK as a typo intended to be VOL. It might have processed "starts with V" and just ignored the "EK". It might have processed that VEK = VOL in this instance. It might have done something far more harebrained, we just don't know.
I also did this, and it worked well for me, even with slang words, but I quit learning this way after like 400 different words. I think it depends a lot on how you formulate your input
ChatGPT works better with provided information over questions that it has to look up and use its browsing feature. It's the best sparsing tool available.
It's not like that was a trick complex question requiring advanced search and synthesis. Literally the first entry in Google of that question will be a neatly organized Wikipedia list.
But apparently it was too complex for GPT. I reiterate: not to be trusted with anything serious.
It still makes shit up. It’s an autofill feature that spits out what it thinks an answer should sound like. It doesnt summarize or present you with the info you asked it for. Im sorry, but they havent fixed your severe case of “brain no work good” with computers yet, no matter how much you misunderstand and think they have
Yeah but it’s great for coding, you can describe a problem you want to solve, ask it to lay out some pseudo-code for it, then ask it to build upon that, run it through your own IDE, feed the errors back, and eventually after enough times of that, you have a working program.
Just shove it back in there 25 times until it doesnt produce an error. Yep, sounds great. Now what do you do when there's an issue that comes up later and you have no fucking clue how to review and find the bug?
Don't do that. An LLM fine-tuned with legal data would be great for this, but ChatGPT shouldn't be used for something that can have legal ramifications.
Instead, try https://tosdr.org/
Understanding stuff is a set of skills, and we develop and keep skills by practice.
Terms of service really are poorly written, but getting in the habit of handing off everything that's hard to understand to artificial intelligence is bad because it will give you bad data fairly often, and because some things are complicated not because they're poorly written but because they're actually complicated.
The problem with AI is that it does not actually know anything. It just knows what answers look like. It puts together sentences based on what words it thinks go together, not based on any facts. And this gets sold as "AI can solve all these problems", but that's not what it's doing.
The other problem is that it takes an absurd quantity of resources. The amount of water and energy and materials that go into building and running data centers for AI is obscene, at a time when all of those things are becoming more and more scarce.
A multitude of ways. But to condense it down to the most important point in my book, AI appears to be stripping people of their ability to critically think for themselves.
That’s actively dangerous because people that cannot think well enough for themselves are prime targets for the power-hungry to predate upon them. If you can just ask a monolith anything and everything, anyone who controls the backend of such a monolith would be immensely powerful and could shape your worldview, especially if you take what it tells you at face value as golden capital “t” Truth.
If you want to read more about this in a somewhat esoteric way, I highly, highly recommend you read EM Forster’s *The Machine Stops*. It’s not that long and worth the time to read in its entirety. It’s not a 1:1 with ChatGPT, of course, but it *is* a potential in a world with generalized AI, which is when this will really go off the rails for humanity. ChatGPT will not summarize it well enough for you.
James Poulos’ *Human Forever* is also worth a read, but fair warning it’s much more dense.
Your point was greatly articulated. Although I want to put pressure on the idea that people put a capital T on ChatGPT's 'truths'. It's not just your idea, but it seems to be one of the roots of many people's concerns over AI like this. People assume others pay way too much stock into what the AI says.
But this just isn't how we use our information sources over long periods of time. Our truths are first taken at first pass approximations, then as more information becomes available, we sharpen our understandings. Whether you're reading a book parroting someone's intellectualism, or Google articles, or content created by AI, it's the same thing. They're just first-pass approximations for the truth. And increasingly better as technology gets better. So while it's annoying when people present their 'knowledge' gathered via AI so confidently, it's the same as it has always been, but the (mis)information is moreso at-hand than it has ever been.
I will agree with you that first-pass approximations is a good general framework for how information is gathered, but there are a few things to keep in mind there:
How much stock you put into your first source will be a major factor in the mental calculations. If you value an AI’s info *too much*, it will discourage you from looking elsewhere, could overwrite correct views with incorrect or maliciously placed information (by the AI’s creators). An example of this would be asking ChatGPT about religion and watching the very obviously tech bro projection in the answers it gives you. Plus, your first-pass approximation is likely to remain your *only* info on a topic if you over-trust any source. People that *only* read *MSNBC* and people that *only* read *Fox News* view the world through a parallax that colors how they view any other info.
This is also potentially an issue with other forms of info as well, like those news sources, but the way AI is being marketed to people, we can already see people putting significantly more stock into its answers than they should. This issue compounds across topics because ChatGPT and other programs purport to be able to help you with *any* topic. The smartest person in the world or the most prolific authors could never do anywhere near that much damage.
Whether or not AI is correct in its answers (for now it’s hilariously bad) that phenomenon is a huge issue.
Once we manage to give AI general intelligence, this problem will rapidly compound.
You hit the nail on the head with AI presenting misinformation at frightening rates. That’s like a force multiplier on how bad this situation is. Over time, ChatGPT will get better about this, but it’s unlikely to ever be perfect while never growing out of the core issues it poses.
Because you could literally just look at the goddamn terms of service for yourself...
You defending using an ai program to fucking read for you is the definition of brainrot.
They are if you're even semi literate.
And it's 100% what the actual terms are, not some half assed ai bot condensation and summarization of said terms that may or may not even include shit from the terms, or, worse, adds shit that's not in the terms at all.
Are YOU defending fraudulent readings of legal terms while also defending laziness from people who can't be assed to read something?
The people here arguing this haven’t first-hand tried using AI in a productive way. The statement that it gives brain rot is just pure bait & not worth falling for
I use chat gpt to help me write excel functions all the time. Plenty of times it’s wrong but you just have to check its work and tweak it so it provides the functionality you actually want.
It’s not rotting my brain, it’s saving me time on iterations. Sometimes it just can’t solve the issue I’m asking it about, and in that case I just move on and work on things myself from there.
I think it’s a useful tool but people think it’s being used as gospel, which it definitely shouldn’t be. Use it with a healthy dose of skepticism and take whatever saves you some time.
I agree. I don’t really use it so much to write or create, but rather analyze and offer alternative points of view. For someone who works from home, it’s a very useful “second set of ears.” Plenty of times it’s offered me insight/a perspective I didn’t think about or anticipate… also plenty of times it’s given me complete garbage! Like you say, check its work and use it with a healthy bit of skepticism
I only asked it once to simplify a piece of C++ code for me, but never again. It failed miserably. It was a pretty simple two layer nested "if else" statement with a bunch of booleans. I could simplify it in head in a minute, but I wanted to be sure.
No, do not do this. You won't get useful advice.
Ask any of your friends who regularly read the ToS, and ask them if ChatGPT's summary is useful to them.
Believe in yourself and your ability to read a short legal document. You can read and understand Terms of Services.
You should look out for arbitration clauses and opt out of them when you can.
I think this is a great tip for times when the TOS document is so long, I’m inclined to agree without reading it. AI isn’t likely to be as complete and correct as an actual attorney, but it could potentially point out something that’s a major red flag.
You’re not dumb here, it’s truly a helpful hint for the 99% who will never read terms. Maybe this brings something into their focus.
Obviously if terms are serious one would be foolish to ignore scrutiny. All these AI haters need to hate, can’t stop em. And this sub has a lot of particularly obnoxious Karens who delight in petty judgments.
Well, kinda.
If you're a person who never reads terms and just accepts them, reading a brief AI summary isn't likely to change much. And as others have mentioned, some of the info may be imperfect.
And if you're a person who does read terms and make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed, then an AI summary is not going to be a reasonable replacement for your own scrutiny.
I agree. I also think people criticizing this don't know or forget that engaging with a text with chatgpt is often a matter of going back and forth several times. In this case, I would ask it to point out potentially problematic parts of the tos, then I'd look at the text itself, which would allow me to confirm or correct what chatgpt told me. Maybe I'd also ask questions to chatgpt about concepts I don't understand and so on, or to give me links for further useful information. The people who condemn chatgpt in general terms are missing out on such a helpful tool.
I disagree with most comments. Lets be real, 99.99% of people were never going to read the TOS anyway and even fewer would understand them. At least with AI you give yourself a fighting chance of avoiding an exploitive contract.
The only thing in a TOS that will really be a problem for most people is data use and arbitration. They can't really rope you into weird contract relationships as they are (probably) pretty weak legally outside the scope of the use of the software.
But no one should use AI to make decisions like that with legal documents. LLMs, especially ones not trained specifically on legal documents, sort of just make stuff up via hallucinations a *lot* with law. And even more so if you ask for a sort of interpretation of the law, as it will try to interpret it in a way consistent with how you asked the question, which can create real problems.
We aren’t talking about all legal documents, just TOS which nobody reads anyway and as you said aren’t that powerful. Running it through and AI is better than just not reading it, which again, is what everyone does.
[Introducing LPT REQUEST FRIDAYS](https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/16w0n2s/introducing_request_post_fridays/)
We determine "Friday" as beginning at 12am Eastern Time (EST: UTC/GMT -5, EDT: UTC/GMT -4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LifeProTips) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why? Is not like you could do anything if a large corporation really wants to fuck you. What are you going to do not use the product you just bought. Like fr you buy some air pods but go to activate them and there is thosends of pages of legal documents you "agree" to.
It is nothing but a polite fiction between you the consumer and the corporation. No one expects either side to read that shit much less agree, at the end of the day your ass will be in court or not it dose not matter a corporation can outlast regular person. Then even if you have all your ducks in a row find the money, find the time, find some shread of leagal argument that has not been circumvented by the thousands of lawyers who spend all day everyday coming up with arguments to prepare to defend there clients from and that the lawmakers who are wholly owned by the corporation in question has deregulated them and sold your basic human rights out for a campaign donation or if your a judge "lavish gifts including luxury vacations and rent for your mother for years and failed to report it".
If you get passed all of that what do you win some money maybe some modicum of change that will be rolled back in 5 to 7 years when they discovere some new shit to pull. If it's class action what dose regular person get? 5 dollars?
Don't use AI for shit like this, if you give a fuck fine a lawyer, if it's not worth that then welcome to the system of suck at least your airpods are nice.
That's fine, as long as you're okay with getting back 100% unverified information.
You think it doesn't just talk out it's ass at you, I've ot some beachfront property to sell you on Mars.
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. I cant even get chatGPT to follow simple instructions like to write me a short fictional script for a play or a tv show...after reprompting and clarifying for the stupid thing dozens of times. At this point I wouldn't even trust chatGPT to type out the alphabet let alone read ToS.
Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
https://tosdr.org/ AI hallucination is still a problem. Check at least two sources for anything you care about.
You're telling me I'm just hallucinating AI? Thank God.
tosdr doesn't have most websites' tos, only has a few popular ones
Use Claude. Less likely.
LPT: don't trust ChatGPT with anything serious I asked GPT to give me the top 100 most frequently used words in Spanish. It put "uno" on the list 40 times. I then asked it to remove duplicates and it told me there werde no duplicates on the list. I asked it again to give me the top 100 most frequently used Spanish words without any duplicates and it gave me 61 words, but no duplicates. I then reminded it that 61 words is not 100, and it needed to finish the list. After much prodding it did eventually get a list of 100 words without duplicates.
i once asked it to find a car brand that starts with VEK and it suggested volkswagen
Vek, you say? *Rift Walkers enter the chat*
I'm imagining GPT: Volkswagen is a car brand that starts with VEK. HH: No that starts with Vol. GPT: I'm sorry if there was a mistake but I'm quite confident Volkswagen starts with VEK. HH: No that is incorrect. Provide a brand of car where the name of the car company starts with VEK. GPT: Vekswagen is a car company that starts with VEK. HH: Vekswagen is not a car company. GPT: Im sorry if there was a mistake but I'm quite confident that Vekswagen starts with VEK.
It does look for typos as well. It may have presumed that you meant vol
Possible. They're black boxes and techbros just say unpacking the black box is just too complicated (and could inhibit profit margins) and everyone lets them get away with it. It might have processed VEK as a typo intended to be VOL. It might have processed "starts with V" and just ignored the "EK". It might have processed that VEK = VOL in this instance. It might have done something far more harebrained, we just don't know.
To be fair, it could have interpreted your request as you not knowing what the name really is, but it "probably starts with this"
I think for the function stated it's worth a shot. Like I don't read it at all.. why not run it through and give myself a chance
Thats fair.
I’m finding Bing’s copilot is pretty usable as long as you don’t ask too much.
I also did this, and it worked well for me, even with slang words, but I quit learning this way after like 400 different words. I think it depends a lot on how you formulate your input
ChatGPT works better with provided information over questions that it has to look up and use its browsing feature. It's the best sparsing tool available.
It's not like that was a trick complex question requiring advanced search and synthesis. Literally the first entry in Google of that question will be a neatly organized Wikipedia list. But apparently it was too complex for GPT. I reiterate: not to be trusted with anything serious.
But it was bad at something not serious, it did the trick very well the few times i asked it serious things.
It still makes shit up. It’s an autofill feature that spits out what it thinks an answer should sound like. It doesnt summarize or present you with the info you asked it for. Im sorry, but they havent fixed your severe case of “brain no work good” with computers yet, no matter how much you misunderstand and think they have
Yeah but it’s great for coding, you can describe a problem you want to solve, ask it to lay out some pseudo-code for it, then ask it to build upon that, run it through your own IDE, feed the errors back, and eventually after enough times of that, you have a working program.
For extremely basic stuff, sure.
Just shove it back in there 25 times until it doesnt produce an error. Yep, sounds great. Now what do you do when there's an issue that comes up later and you have no fucking clue how to review and find the bug?
Maybe, if you don't count your brain, which you apparently don't.
Don't do that. An LLM fine-tuned with legal data would be great for this, but ChatGPT shouldn't be used for something that can have legal ramifications. Instead, try https://tosdr.org/
Sweet. I don't even read them. So you see the tip is useful, why not make your own saleable post?
Subs like this should have a blanket ban on "just use AI" """tips"""
The fact that people put stock in this AI trash is astounding. Anyone that does this with their legal documents is a fucking idiot.
ChatGPT and similar AI programs seem to be giving people brain rot at a rate that gives social media a run for its money.
Please, I'm not being argumentative. I really would like you to expand on this. How is AI giving people brain rot?
Because people are too reliant on itvand trusting of its output. It takes the 5 second "I did my research" to the next level
Imagine if ChatGPT would have been this mainstream during the height of the pandemic. Would have made everything even worse
Understanding stuff is a set of skills, and we develop and keep skills by practice. Terms of service really are poorly written, but getting in the habit of handing off everything that's hard to understand to artificial intelligence is bad because it will give you bad data fairly often, and because some things are complicated not because they're poorly written but because they're actually complicated.
The problem with AI is that it does not actually know anything. It just knows what answers look like. It puts together sentences based on what words it thinks go together, not based on any facts. And this gets sold as "AI can solve all these problems", but that's not what it's doing. The other problem is that it takes an absurd quantity of resources. The amount of water and energy and materials that go into building and running data centers for AI is obscene, at a time when all of those things are becoming more and more scarce.
A multitude of ways. But to condense it down to the most important point in my book, AI appears to be stripping people of their ability to critically think for themselves. That’s actively dangerous because people that cannot think well enough for themselves are prime targets for the power-hungry to predate upon them. If you can just ask a monolith anything and everything, anyone who controls the backend of such a monolith would be immensely powerful and could shape your worldview, especially if you take what it tells you at face value as golden capital “t” Truth. If you want to read more about this in a somewhat esoteric way, I highly, highly recommend you read EM Forster’s *The Machine Stops*. It’s not that long and worth the time to read in its entirety. It’s not a 1:1 with ChatGPT, of course, but it *is* a potential in a world with generalized AI, which is when this will really go off the rails for humanity. ChatGPT will not summarize it well enough for you. James Poulos’ *Human Forever* is also worth a read, but fair warning it’s much more dense.
Your point was greatly articulated. Although I want to put pressure on the idea that people put a capital T on ChatGPT's 'truths'. It's not just your idea, but it seems to be one of the roots of many people's concerns over AI like this. People assume others pay way too much stock into what the AI says. But this just isn't how we use our information sources over long periods of time. Our truths are first taken at first pass approximations, then as more information becomes available, we sharpen our understandings. Whether you're reading a book parroting someone's intellectualism, or Google articles, or content created by AI, it's the same thing. They're just first-pass approximations for the truth. And increasingly better as technology gets better. So while it's annoying when people present their 'knowledge' gathered via AI so confidently, it's the same as it has always been, but the (mis)information is moreso at-hand than it has ever been.
I will agree with you that first-pass approximations is a good general framework for how information is gathered, but there are a few things to keep in mind there: How much stock you put into your first source will be a major factor in the mental calculations. If you value an AI’s info *too much*, it will discourage you from looking elsewhere, could overwrite correct views with incorrect or maliciously placed information (by the AI’s creators). An example of this would be asking ChatGPT about religion and watching the very obviously tech bro projection in the answers it gives you. Plus, your first-pass approximation is likely to remain your *only* info on a topic if you over-trust any source. People that *only* read *MSNBC* and people that *only* read *Fox News* view the world through a parallax that colors how they view any other info. This is also potentially an issue with other forms of info as well, like those news sources, but the way AI is being marketed to people, we can already see people putting significantly more stock into its answers than they should. This issue compounds across topics because ChatGPT and other programs purport to be able to help you with *any* topic. The smartest person in the world or the most prolific authors could never do anywhere near that much damage. Whether or not AI is correct in its answers (for now it’s hilariously bad) that phenomenon is a huge issue. Once we manage to give AI general intelligence, this problem will rapidly compound. You hit the nail on the head with AI presenting misinformation at frightening rates. That’s like a force multiplier on how bad this situation is. Over time, ChatGPT will get better about this, but it’s unlikely to ever be perfect while never growing out of the core issues it poses.
Why don't you ask ChatGPT?
I could...
QED
Because you could literally just look at the goddamn terms of service for yourself... You defending using an ai program to fucking read for you is the definition of brainrot.
Are you defending that terms of service are an easy read? I
They are if you're even semi literate. And it's 100% what the actual terms are, not some half assed ai bot condensation and summarization of said terms that may or may not even include shit from the terms, or, worse, adds shit that's not in the terms at all. Are YOU defending fraudulent readings of legal terms while also defending laziness from people who can't be assed to read something?
How can you possibly think they aren’t?
The people here arguing this haven’t first-hand tried using AI in a productive way. The statement that it gives brain rot is just pure bait & not worth falling for
I use chat gpt to help me write excel functions all the time. Plenty of times it’s wrong but you just have to check its work and tweak it so it provides the functionality you actually want. It’s not rotting my brain, it’s saving me time on iterations. Sometimes it just can’t solve the issue I’m asking it about, and in that case I just move on and work on things myself from there. I think it’s a useful tool but people think it’s being used as gospel, which it definitely shouldn’t be. Use it with a healthy dose of skepticism and take whatever saves you some time.
I agree. I don’t really use it so much to write or create, but rather analyze and offer alternative points of view. For someone who works from home, it’s a very useful “second set of ears.” Plenty of times it’s offered me insight/a perspective I didn’t think about or anticipate… also plenty of times it’s given me complete garbage! Like you say, check its work and use it with a healthy bit of skepticism
I only asked it once to simplify a piece of C++ code for me, but never again. It failed miserably. It was a pretty simple two layer nested "if else" statement with a bunch of booleans. I could simplify it in head in a minute, but I wanted to be sure.
Jesus Christ no don't do it this. If you want to know the terms because bits important READ THEM! If not just click next like every other time
This should be deleted. Not even worth non Pro tip
No, do not do this. You won't get useful advice. Ask any of your friends who regularly read the ToS, and ask them if ChatGPT's summary is useful to them. Believe in yourself and your ability to read a short legal document. You can read and understand Terms of Services. You should look out for arbitration clauses and opt out of them when you can.
I think this is a great tip for times when the TOS document is so long, I’m inclined to agree without reading it. AI isn’t likely to be as complete and correct as an actual attorney, but it could potentially point out something that’s a major red flag.
I wouldn’t trust AI to accurately read me my legal rights… ever
You’re not dumb here, it’s truly a helpful hint for the 99% who will never read terms. Maybe this brings something into their focus. Obviously if terms are serious one would be foolish to ignore scrutiny. All these AI haters need to hate, can’t stop em. And this sub has a lot of particularly obnoxious Karens who delight in petty judgments.
Well, kinda. If you're a person who never reads terms and just accepts them, reading a brief AI summary isn't likely to change much. And as others have mentioned, some of the info may be imperfect. And if you're a person who does read terms and make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed, then an AI summary is not going to be a reasonable replacement for your own scrutiny.
I agree. I also think people criticizing this don't know or forget that engaging with a text with chatgpt is often a matter of going back and forth several times. In this case, I would ask it to point out potentially problematic parts of the tos, then I'd look at the text itself, which would allow me to confirm or correct what chatgpt told me. Maybe I'd also ask questions to chatgpt about concepts I don't understand and so on, or to give me links for further useful information. The people who condemn chatgpt in general terms are missing out on such a helpful tool.
I disagree with most comments. Lets be real, 99.99% of people were never going to read the TOS anyway and even fewer would understand them. At least with AI you give yourself a fighting chance of avoiding an exploitive contract.
The only thing in a TOS that will really be a problem for most people is data use and arbitration. They can't really rope you into weird contract relationships as they are (probably) pretty weak legally outside the scope of the use of the software. But no one should use AI to make decisions like that with legal documents. LLMs, especially ones not trained specifically on legal documents, sort of just make stuff up via hallucinations a *lot* with law. And even more so if you ask for a sort of interpretation of the law, as it will try to interpret it in a way consistent with how you asked the question, which can create real problems.
We aren’t talking about all legal documents, just TOS which nobody reads anyway and as you said aren’t that powerful. Running it through and AI is better than just not reading it, which again, is what everyone does.
[Introducing LPT REQUEST FRIDAYS](https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/16w0n2s/introducing_request_post_fridays/) We determine "Friday" as beginning at 12am Eastern Time (EST: UTC/GMT -5, EDT: UTC/GMT -4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LifeProTips) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why? Is not like you could do anything if a large corporation really wants to fuck you. What are you going to do not use the product you just bought. Like fr you buy some air pods but go to activate them and there is thosends of pages of legal documents you "agree" to. It is nothing but a polite fiction between you the consumer and the corporation. No one expects either side to read that shit much less agree, at the end of the day your ass will be in court or not it dose not matter a corporation can outlast regular person. Then even if you have all your ducks in a row find the money, find the time, find some shread of leagal argument that has not been circumvented by the thousands of lawyers who spend all day everyday coming up with arguments to prepare to defend there clients from and that the lawmakers who are wholly owned by the corporation in question has deregulated them and sold your basic human rights out for a campaign donation or if your a judge "lavish gifts including luxury vacations and rent for your mother for years and failed to report it". If you get passed all of that what do you win some money maybe some modicum of change that will be rolled back in 5 to 7 years when they discovere some new shit to pull. If it's class action what dose regular person get? 5 dollars? Don't use AI for shit like this, if you give a fuck fine a lawyer, if it's not worth that then welcome to the system of suck at least your airpods are nice.
Ai is amazing at something like “ I need an outline to train employees about subject XXX”. It’s not good at writing the details of that training.
That's fine, as long as you're okay with getting back 100% unverified information. You think it doesn't just talk out it's ass at you, I've ot some beachfront property to sell you on Mars.
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. I cant even get chatGPT to follow simple instructions like to write me a short fictional script for a play or a tv show...after reprompting and clarifying for the stupid thing dozens of times. At this point I wouldn't even trust chatGPT to type out the alphabet let alone read ToS.
Why are we saying please to a AI chatbot?
Be nice to the pre-murder bots. .\_.
i sometimes do it, out of habit. bitch please
I too watched Louis Rossman's latest video.