It can do those things. And you need to re-read what's already been said on this comments page, because how it's useful has been explained several times already

I certainly don’t want my attorney wasting time considering the opinions and motivations of the person that’s suing me.

Lmao. You people are fucking idiots.

How is that any different than you. Objectively prove to everyone here than none of your opinions have ever been influence by anything youve ever seen, read or heard.

This is the unintentional uncanny valley for me in AI.

I ( was forced to ) use chatGTP for work. It can talk about everything and sounds very confident and seems reliable to always come up with something to help you solve your problems.

You talk with it about some niche content and suddenly have an ardent fan of said niche content responding. It surely knows every little bit of info of that niche and surprises you with funny, but apt quotes from your favorite show in the middle of conversations about something else.

This is just from a tiny bit of interaction, while at work.

I can imagine people completely overwhelmed, by having their thoughts confirmed and supported by something that seems so intelligent, responsive and remembers all your conversations. It literally remembers each word.

For many people it may be the first time in their life, that they experience a positive response to their thoughts. Not only that, they also found someone eager to talk with them about it.

William MacKenzie King, the longest serving Prime Minister in Canada used to commune with spirits via psychic mediums including those of his dead dogs. It was only revealed after his death but was a big part of his life.

I agree it's weird.

Everyones initial use of chatbots should be on the thing they are most knowledgable about so they can get an idea of how wrong it can be and how it can be useful but you have to treat it like some eager wet behind the ears intern just did for you.

It really can't. It does not understand things.

Didn't Nancy Regan, wife of former USA President Ronald Regan, did this as well. (Ronald was apparently not mentally fit for the last few years as well.)

Nor was he mentally fit for the first years

EDIT - y'all are so silly, you're just gonna downvote this incontrovertible proof of it doing exactly what you said it couldn't do, and instead just pretend it doesn't exist

Since it's so easy to do i just went ahead and did it for you. Here's my prompts and ai's replies. It will write any opinion you want it to talk about, and give cogent reasonings and arguments for that opinion.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is bad. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Why Removing Car Lanes for Bike Lanes Can Be Counterproductive

Reallocating car lanes to create bike lanes may seem progressive, but it can have unintended consequences that undermine its goals. In densely populated urban areas, vehicular traffic remains essential for commerce, emergency services, and commuting—especially for individuals who cannot rely on biking due to age, disability, or long travel distances. When car lanes are removed, congestion intensifies, leading to increased emissions as drivers idle longer and search for alternative routes.

Public transportation often depends on road infrastructure too. Buses trapped in traffic delays become less reliable, disproportionately affecting lower-income riders who depend on them. Additionally, essential services like ambulances and delivery trucks face new bottlenecks, risking delays that can have serious implications.

The assumption that cyclists will replace drivers ignores demographic and logistical realities. Bike lanes benefit a specific subset of urban users—but they shouldn’t come at the cost of broader mobility. Instead of eliminating car lanes, cities should consider expanding bike networks where space allows or investing in multimodal infrastructure that improves mobility for all users.

Urban planning should strive for balance, not substitution. Redesigning streets must enhance accessibility across the board, not create new friction between commuters who are simply trying to get where they need to go.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is good. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Opinion: Why Converting Car Lanes to Bike Lanes Benefits Everyone

Urban spaces must evolve to meet the needs of modern communities—and converting car lanes into bike lanes is one of the smartest, most equitable moves cities can make. First, bike lanes promote healthier lifestyles. By making cycling safer and more accessible, people are more likely to trade short car trips for active commuting, which supports physical health and lowers emissions.

Second, cities thrive on efficiency. Cars take up tremendous space and often carry just one passenger. Bikes, by contrast, use a fraction of that space and cause significantly less wear on infrastructure. Fewer car lanes mean reduced traffic volume over time as behavior adjusts, alleviating congestion—not worsening it.

Third, these changes make streets safer. Studies consistently show that well-designed bike infrastructure leads to fewer traffic collisions and fatalities. Cyclists separated from speeding vehicles feel safer, and drivers operate with greater awareness.

Finally, this shift reflects a cultural transformation: from car dominance to sustainable mobility. Prioritizing bike infrastructure signals that our cities value cleaner air, quieter streets, and more livable neighborhoods.

Reshaping roads isn’t just about bikes—it’s about building cities for people, not just machines. Let’s pedal forward together.

Bad news friend. The number of atheist heads of state is surprisingly low.

Are you MAGA or something? Do you not understand how attorneys bill their clients?

What a stupid fucking thing to admit. Let's hope he's out on his ass next election.

"That's right voters I'm spineless and have no original ideas" -every politician

Anyone who has an immediate kneejerk reaction the moment someone mentions AI is no better than the people they’re criticizing. Horseshoe theory applies here too - the most vocal AI haters are just as out of touch as the people who treat everything an LLM says as gospel.

There’s a certain irony in people reacting in an extremely predictable way - spewing hate and criticism the moment someone mentions AI - while seemingly not realizing that they’re reflexively responding to a prompt without any real thought, just like an LLM.

A tool isn’t bad just because it doesn’t do what you thought it would do. You just take that into account and adjust how you use it. Hammer isn't a scam just because it can't drive in screws.

How is "not understanding things" preventing an LLM from bringing up a point you hadn't thought of before?

It doesn’t understand things the way humans do, but saying it doesn’t know anything at all isn’t quite accurate either. This thing was trained on the entire internet and your grandma’s diary. You simply don’t absorb that much data without some kind of learning taking place.

It’s not a knowledge machine, but it does have a sort of “world model” that’s emerged from its training data. It “knows” what happens when you throw a stone through a window or put your hand in boiling water. That kind of knowledge isn’t what it was explicitly designed for - it’s a byproduct of being trained on data that contains a lot of correct information.

It’s not as knowledgeable as the AI companies want you to believe - but it’s also not as dumb as the haters want you to believe either.