Hacker News Reader

Comment by sampo | Hacker News Reader

Remember that professor who fed student essays to ChatGPT and asked if it wrote them. Mostly ChatGPT would reply yes, and the professor proceeded to fail the students.

View on HN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35963163

("Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP [sic]", 277 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35980121

("Texas professor failed half of class after ChatGPT claimed it wrote their papers", 22 comments)

My main takeaway is that failing the second half of the class and misspelling ChatGPT leads to > 10x engagement.

Err, out of abundance of caution, the misspelling of "ChatGPT" which I [sic]'d is original to the Texas A&M professor, who repeated the misspelling multiple times in his email/rant. The HN poster quoted the professor literally, and I am thus transitively [sic]'ing the professor – not the HN poster. I am not mocking an HN poster's typo.

It still leaves the burning question whether it's half or the whole pie. :V

That's interesting. Unlike Reddit, maintaining an article's actual title isn't a priority on this site, and moderation is only too happy to change it at their whims. I'm surprised that the spelling wasn't corrected by mods out of pedantry.

My main takeway is that the guy who registers chatgtp.com is going to make a lot of money by providing bogus answers to frivolous questions :-)

There will be lots of data stealing ChatGPT plugins

Funnily enough chatgpt had no more idea about that than about these legal cases, it lives in a state of perpetual hallucination and making stuff up is its only mode of operation.

It hallucinates a sequence of tokens, and we hallucinate meaning.

We with computer science knowledge understand this, but not the mass who are buying into the hype.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com