Where's the poll option for "it continues to be overhyped junk spewing misinformation, then arguing with the user (Bard) or acquiescing when pressed regardless of the correctness of the rebuttal (ChatGPT)"?
You can surely get a indistinguishable imitation of human text from including things like Reddit comments in the LLM training data. Correctness is a hurdle I am not convinced will be surpassed.
I write technical finance/econ articles and the only thing I've found it useful for is getting a vague outline of typical topics that might be touched on in an entry-level article about something.
For example to GPT-4 I ask:
>is silver a good investment? what are the considerations to take into account?
Returns essentially an enumerated list of topics about supply and demand, volatility, storage considerations, and opportunity cost compared to other investments. These are very basic explanations of a sentence or two and usually correct, but too general to be of much use.
I then ask:
>how has the historical performance of silver compared to gold and the S&P 500 over the past 5 decades?
And it provides vague history of what happened to each investment in each decade, no quantifiable data. Okay, let's ask:
>Re-consider the above prompt using quantifiable data, how much would an investment of $1,000 per month adjusted for inflation into each of these investments have compared at the end of the 5 decades?
Output: I apologize for the confusion, but as an AI language model, I don't have access to real-time data or the ability to perform specific calculations.
You can surely get a indistinguishable imitation of human text from including things like Reddit comments in the LLM training data. Correctness is a hurdle I am not convinced will be surpassed.