I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
I am not saying ChatGPT4 is fool proof, but neither is any source. And if I actually will try to understand the original sociological research paper, it may increase my chances of misunderstanding the data.
Let me put this this way - start asking ChatGPT4 (not 3.5) biological and medical questions and keep tally of correct answers. You would see how accurate it is. I would say with 95% probability it would answer such questions correctly. And this is how much credence I put in its answer.
So, when you say that I was providing the fact that may be right maybe not, yes, that’s correct. But it is not 50/50, far from it.
And if you do not want to provide rebuttal, it is your right, of course. But then, what’s the point of your post? We just need to believe your statement when you itself refuse to provide zero evidence?? You understand how it looks, right?
Fool proof*…
Thanks, corrected.
You aren’t correcting anything. You are using chatgpt as a source and using adjectives you don’t even understand. You failed the test.
Its actually foolproof.