> As the AI gets better people will trust it

AI is just informed search, a dwarf sitting on shoulders of human knowledge. There were medical "expert systems" in 2000s, yet we still have doctors.

In my understanding, in most cases AI will be a glorified assistant, not an authoritative decision-maker. Otherwise in collides head-on with barriers and semis. I won't trust such system even with a parking ticket, yet alone my life.

We're just at the top of a hype-cycle now. AI can do new things, but not as well as we dream or hope.

Whatever it is, it's getting better.

And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.

> Whatever it is, it's getting better.

Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot.

> And lots of people would rather have a glorified assistant than nothing.

An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or for telling the truth.

The future is bright!

> Yeah, telling grammatically correct but factually wrong things, having biases, crashing into things, and whatnot.

If you don't think it's right more often, please go poke an older model. Especially look at the ability to stay on topic.

> An assistant which can't be checked for accuracy, or for telling the truth.

What do you mean "can't be checked"? And any kind of assistant can make mistakes.

And calling it an assistant was your idea.

Any kind of assistant can make mistakes. But a human assistant can be made to show their work and explain their reasoning to check their output. If ChatGPT says "this thing is totally legal" or "don't worry about that rash", how am I to validate it's "reasoning"? How do I know where it's drawing it's inference from?