liking Instagram information lgbt reports

I Tested ChatGPT in My Business for 30 Days—Here’s What Worked Well (and What Didn’t)

Reading now: 590

, and he said that he asked ChatGPT to “write me an essay that’s a 13th rule … written in a style that combines the King James Bible with the Tao Te Ching. … It wrote it in about 3 seconds… and it wasn’t obvious to me… that I didn’t write it.”’A bold claim.

If he was impressed by artificial intelligence’s literary prowess, perhaps I should take note. I headed to ChatGPT and typed.“What is the meaning of life?” It gave me a vague answer, but it was well written, impeccably punctuated and, notably, absent of the telltale weirdness that usually comes with a computer algorithm.

It was lightning fast too.I tried a few more queries only to get some fourth-rate copywriting, then I wrote it off as a cute novelty and forgot all about it for six months.But we can’t forget about , can we?

The website is an aggregator of articles from open sources. The source is indicated at the beginning and at the end of the announcement. You can send a complaint on the article if you find it unreliable.

Related articles
Analysis on Homeopathy for ADHD Deemed ‘Invalid,’ ‘Biased’
November 6, 2023Pediatrics Research has retracted a paper on the effectiveness of using homeopathy to treat ADHD, citing “substantial concerns regarding the validity of the results presented in this article.” 1The original article “Is Homeopathy Effective for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder? A Meta-Analysis” reported that “individualized homeopathy showed a clinically relevant and statistically robust effect in the treatment of ADHD.”1 This retraction directly challenges those results and addresses the concerns of critics, who argue that science does not support the use of homeopathy for addressing ADHD symptoms.The journal’s editor-in-chief issued the retraction after a review found four “deficiencies,” including the following:The paper’s retraction comes more than a year after critics first questioned the validity of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Shortly after the paper’s June 2022 publication, Edzard Ernst, M.D., Ph.D., MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd, asked the editors of Pediatrics Research to add a caution notice or withdraw the paper.“We conclude that the positive result obtained by the authors is due to a combination of the inclusion of biased trials unsuitable to build evidence together with some major misreporting of study outcomes,” he wrote.In a follow-up letter sent in June 2023, Ernst wrote, “In our comment, we point out that the authors made a lot of errors — to say it mildly.