The original claim was that ChatGPT has no viable use cases, and grammar correction and text editing clearly disproves that. Whether it’s cheaper or not is just moving the goalposts and doesn’t change the fact that it works and people use it daily. Also, calling it “vastly inferior” is baseless - traditional grammar tools can’t handle nuance, tone, or context the way ChatGPT does.
At least the old tools lacking nuance didn’t lie and gaslight you 1 out of 5 uses.
I’ve never seen ChatGPT do that when asked to correct grammar though. To stay with the analogy, the problem is not that the tool is useless but that people try to use a hammer as a screwdriver and then complain its a bad tool.
Grammar correction and text editing.
In which case it is vastly inferior and magnitudes more costly than a local algorithm and dictionary, like the ones we had long before the GPT.
The original claim was that ChatGPT has no viable use cases, and grammar correction and text editing clearly disproves that. Whether it’s cheaper or not is just moving the goalposts and doesn’t change the fact that it works and people use it daily. Also, calling it “vastly inferior” is baseless - traditional grammar tools can’t handle nuance, tone, or context the way ChatGPT does.
If you invented a new three headed hammer which is in every way worse than a hammer then you’ve invented a thing with zero use case, idiot.
At least the old tools lacking nuance didn’t lie and gaslight you 1 out of 5 uses.
I’ve never seen ChatGPT do that when asked to correct grammar though. To stay with the analogy, the problem is not that the tool is useless but that people try to use a hammer as a screwdriver and then complain its a bad tool.