[ShamelessC]

Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception? Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist.

> While inaccurate information may be tolerable when a student uses ChatGPT to help him with their homework, it is unacceptable when it comes to information about individuals.

I don’t even understand this part. Why would inaccurate information be at all acceptable for homework? You need accurate information there just as much as with people. In fact there’s probably a good deal of overlap.

This article is bad.

[latexr]

> Didn’t the media cover this already over and over since ChatGPT’s inception?

This is not “the media”. noyb isn’t reporting on what other people did, they are informing us of what they just did.

> Not that it isn’t important but to imply it is a new revelation seems sensationalist.

The article isn’t about the failings of ChatGPT, it’s about a specific legal complaint being made.

> Why would inaccurate information be at all acceptable for homework?

It’s acceptable in a legal sense, you get a bad grade and that’s that. But falsehoods about a particular individual on a popular resource could be quite damaging and are against EU law.

> This article is bad.

Rather, you completely misunderstood it.

[ShamelessC]

I mean, yeah I was having a tough time understanding it. I felt like my comment conveyed my confusion pretty well. I still think the wording is strange and the most clarifying thing you’ve provided is that this guy is a blogger and his target audience is far less broad than HN encapsulates.

Sorry if you took offense to my saying the article was bad. I regret saying that now, it was unnecessary.