The mistake the author is making is one they are still making, even as they write this.
They are referring to ChatGPT as if it is an entity that has a point of view that you could uncover through conversation, instead of an non-entity whose mission is to convince the reader that it is an entity.
There is not much point in analyzing what it writes unless this changes.
The mistake the author is making is one they are still making, even as they write this.
They are referring to ChatGPT as if it is an entity that has a point of view that you could uncover through conversation, instead of an non-entity whose mission is to convince the reader that it is an entity.
There is not much point in analyzing what it writes unless this changes.