[OnlineGladiator]

The point you're missing is it's not always right. Cherry-picking examples doesn't really bolster your point.

Obviously it works for you (or at least you think it does), but I can confidently say it's fucking god-awful for me.

[glenstein]

>The point you're missing is it's not always right.

That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test.

They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.

[simianwords]

Am I really the one cherry picking? Please read the thread.

[OnlineGladiator]

Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people.

If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.