> Here is a correct, standard correction:

It does this all the time, but as often as not then outputs nonsense again, just different nonsense, and if you keep it running long enough it starts repeating previous errors (presumably because some sliding window is exhausted).

▲

measurablefunc 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's been my general experience and that was the most recent example. People keep forgetting that unless they can independently verify the outputs they are essentially paying OpenAI for the privilige of being very confidently gaslighted.

	▲	jacquesm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It would be a really nice exercise - for which I unfortunately do not have the time - to have a non-trivial conversation with the best models of the day and then to rigorously fact-check every bit of output to determine the output quality. Judging from my own (probably not a representative sample) experience it would be a very meager showing. I use AI as a means of last resort only now and then mostly as a source of inspiration rather than a direct tool aiming to solve an issue. And like that it has been useful on occasion, but it has at least as often been a tremendous waste of time.