To me, GPTs are mainly problematic in the hands of the general public; I see no reason why they can’t be extremely useful in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing. And I don’t buy the “well you have to verify what they’re saying” argument, because hence “someone who knows what they’re doing”: you want to take NP problems that are inherently hard to solve but easy to verify. GPTs are stochastic just like any form of ML, and you need to use them accordingly.
I don’t use them personally, but that’s because I have a decade of experience researching and can usually find what I need to in one go – usually weird, one-off stuff. On the other hand, a GPT set on specific problems rather than trying to be a general Q&A machine etc. is probably/I think has shown to be extremely useful for researchers who know what they’re doing with it.
I said I somewhat agree with your sentiment mainly because I think you’re conflating useful and problematic.
To me, GPTs are mainly problematic in the hands of the general public; I see no reason why they can’t be extremely useful in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing. And I don’t buy the “well you have to verify what they’re saying” argument, because hence “someone who knows what they’re doing”: you want to take NP problems that are inherently hard to solve but easy to verify. GPTs are stochastic just like any form of ML, and you need to use them accordingly.
I don’t use them personally, but that’s because I have a decade of experience researching and can usually find what I need to in one go – usually weird, one-off stuff. On the other hand, a GPT set on specific problems rather than trying to be a general Q&A machine etc. is probably/I think has shown to be extremely useful for researchers who know what they’re doing with it.
I said I somewhat agree with your sentiment mainly because I think you’re conflating useful and problematic.