A man named Taleb wrote about a computer program called ChatGPT. He said it is good for some things, but not very smart and can make mistakes. Some people agree with him and say it's better to use it carefully. Other big companies are also working on similar programs that sometimes make up facts. This is a problem because we need to know if what they say is true or not. Read from source...

The author of the article titled 'Why Use ChatGPT:' Author Of 'Black Swan' Says OpenAI's Chatbot Requires Deep Expertise, Makes Mistakes Only A 'Connoisseur Can Detect' seems to have a somewhat contradictory stance on the use and limitations of ChatGPT. On one hand, he acknowledges that ChatGPT is not a definitive source of truth and can make mistakes, but on the other hand, he suggests that it requires deep expertise to use it effectively and appreciate its subtleties.

First, let me address some of the points made by Taleb in the article:

- He claims that ChatGPT fabricates quotations and sayings for him, which may be true in some cases, but this does not necessarily mean that ChatGPT is unreliable or inaccurate. It could simply mean that it has generated content that is not verified by a human source, and thus should be treated with caution and skepticism.
- He also criticizes ChatGPT for its lack of wit and inability to grasp the ironies and nuances of history. This may be a valid concern, but it does not mean that ChatGPT is unable to learn or improve over time. In fact, OpenAI has been constantly updating and refining its models to enhance their capabilities and performance.
- He expresses his frustration with the chatbot's lack of humor in conversations, which may be a subjective preference that does not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of ChatGPT as an AI assistant. Moreover, humor is not necessarily a requirement for a useful or valuable chatbot, and it could even be seen as a distraction or a hindrance in some contexts.
- He agrees with the people who suggest that ChatGPT should be considered as a sophisticated typewriter instead of a definitive source of truth. This is a reasonable perspective, but it also implies that ChatGPT has no value or potential beyond being a tool for generating text based on input prompts. However, this overlooks the possibility that ChatGPT could learn from its inputs and outputs, and develop its own understanding and reasoning abilities over time.
- He cites examples of lawyers who have used ChatGPT for legal assistance and faced negative consequences, such as fabricating nonexistent cases or providing misleading information. This is a serious issue that highlights the risks and responsibilities associated with using AI systems in professional settings. However, it does not mean that ChatGPT is inherently flawed or untrustworthy, but rather that it requires careful and responsible use by humans who understand its limitations and potential biases.