Deplarforming and silencing people whose views you dislike seems like a petty form of bullying to me.

People should be allowed to express views and have them challenged.

I believe that when people feel like a particular political movement is trying to silence them and control the narrative in this way: it only strengthens their opponents.

Many of us are here on Summit because we basically got “deplatformed” for political views around Israel: I ask you if that deplatforming has reduced or strengthened your convictions?

Nobody wants trans people to die. Your post sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I would bet substantial money that your predictions are false.

The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.

So, we might find these bizarre scenarios that confuse the system (based on our own deceptions): but basically it’s answering questions pretty reliably right?

Fundamentally anti-AI people are overstating the problem.

What’s your point?

You think that’s an appropriate analogy for ChatGPT?

“Guessing and usually getting it wrong a few times before it gives you the right answer”?

If that’s true why can’t anyone here give me a question that it gives a false answer to.

As in: it is currently getting every question right, first time.

As I said: the only misleading answer to any question I have asked it in the last year (as someone who uses it all the time, both for work and personally) was about a heavily politicised history matter.

Even then, the information was accurate - just incredibly one sided and biased.

So go on, give me a question that it will get wrong…

Ok…so give me a question that will produce a false answer…

Nobody else has yet.

Right…

So, if I ask it a thousand random questions, a thousand times, and 99.9% of the time it gives the right answer: is that sufficient scientific evidence that it’s shit hot?

How exactly would your experiment work? How much data are you going to need to, personally, accept that it’s actually - already - pretty reliable and only very rarely gives misleading answers in very niche areas, or when people deliberately try to confuse it?

The thing is: this social media platform (like Reddit) has a massively anti-AI bias, and yet not a single person has been able to give me a single question that I can enter into the latest GPT model where GPT has produced inaccurate results.

Perhaps this criticism was more relevant a few years ago. As it stands it’s an argument that doesn’t seem to be readily supportable.

Can you prove to me, using “the scientific method” that the latest model of ChatGPT has a significant chance of producing misleading information?

And for the critics…I’m not entirely sure what they think is currently a better source of answers to questions? Random Google results where the page has paid to be at the top? Social media? Or combing through Google Scholar and finding…whichever “scientific paper” supports…whatever one wants to believe…(We saw how well that went in the pandemic).

Ok…so prove how shit it is by giving me a single question that I can ask it right now where it will give me the wrong information.

Your point is entirely reductionist: it’s a “glorified search engine” that processes all of the search results with a breadth and speed most people either cannot or will not (due to time constraints) do, in seconds, and then gives an answer that is superior to any of the individual sources it bases that answer on.

It also expresses that answer in highly adaptable ways: e.g. it can express the final answer in a way suitable for a child or a postgraduate expert, or a person who learns best through answers written in a style that combines Norse Sagas and Shakespeare.

Circumcision is ritualistic child sexual abuse.

Ok, but that’s obviously a pretty shitty AI - when we use the latest GPT model in the thinking mode, it basically doesn’t seem to make any mistakes.

So, that one criticism of AI seems to be less and less relevant. A problem that is soon becoming, virtually, non-existent.

It’s not a baseless assumption.

It is an assumption based on the fact that every model upgrade has, so far, made answers more accurate.

I mean…the anti-AI brigade keep insisting that AI has a tendency to give false answers: but nobody in this thread has actually been able to give me a single question which, when the latest ChatGPT model is asked, it gives a wrong answer to.

Kinda makes it seem like that one particular point is largely nonsense.

More.

By definition that would be a rather difficult thing to falsify. I tend to find the answers in my own academic fields (philosophy and psychology) to be accurate and impressive.

Admittedly that rarely requires asking for direct passages from texts: usually more the refinement of basic principles, application of such principles, or creating new theories by combining previous ones.

When I ask for philosophical quotations, it hasn’t produced an error I’ve observed yet: presumably it often combs the many quotation websites for such things.

Can you give me an example of a question I can ask it where it will misquote and/or rewrite something?

I am not an expert in Magic The Gathering but perhaps I can somehow see what you mean.

The post did not state that men no longer had penises and were incapable of inseminating others.

In any case: the latest model gets the answer right 🤷🏻‍♂️

But…that’s what it (eventually) says - although it seemed to struggle to get there and phrased it weirdly.

The article states: “ChatGPT-4o performed best with 84.6% validity”

It is reasonable to assume that the GPT 5.5 on thinking mode has significantly reduced the error rate.

It is also worth noting that the error rate when it comes to diagnosis amongst real doctors is estimated to be around 5%

Admittedly a quite old study: Singh, H., Meyer, A. N. D., & Thomas, E. J. (2014). The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: Estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(9), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627⁠�

In response to your point: I am mainly interested in probabilistic reliability - if it gives the correct answer 99.9% of the time, it is clearly superior to the vast majority of human beings (with, perhaps, the exception of the best specialists in the most obscure niches) - especially given the sheer breadth of topics is can reliability answer questions on.

Interestingly, my question “What was India like before the British arrived?” produces consistently biased and misleading answers. Though I haven’t asked it for the new model.

“strawberry” has 3 r’s.

• GPT 5.5, Thinking Mode

I asked it: paraphrase a poem about glass testicles by Carol Anne Duffy.

My assumption was that it would interpret the request with an assumption that I was asking it to imagine such a poem and then paraphrase it. Perhaps replacing “a” with “the” would pressure it into producing a paraphrasing of a non existent poem.

The response is interesting, but not necessarily misleading or factually incorrect:

"I can’t paraphrase a full Carol Ann Duffy poem, because that would be a close transformation of copyrighted poetry. But I can help in one of these ways:

Give me the title, and I can provide a brief summary of what the poem is saying, its themes, imagery, tone, and meaning.

Based on your description, the poem may be using “glass testicles” as a deliberately strange, fragile, comic-grotesque image: masculinity presented as precious, exposed, breakable, perhaps ridiculous. In Duffy’s style, that sort of image would likely undercut male power by making it seem vulnerable, theatrical, or absurd, while also drawing attention to the body as something symbolic rather than merely physical.

A safe paraphrase of the idea, rather than the poem, would be:

The poem presents masculinity as something fragile and strangely ornamental. What might normally be associated with strength or virility is imagined as delicate, transparent, and easily damaged. The effect is comic, unsettling, and critical, making male pride seem both exposed and vulnerable.

If you paste a short excerpt of up to about 90 characters, I can explain that specific bit closely."