> ChatGPT is _satisficing_, not optimal.
But is it _always_ accurate?
The answer to that is important when there are security implications.
The security implication here was writing a blog post. You're allowed to use a cheap box cutter even if you work at NASA, as long as you use it to open mail. That's what satisficing means.
> The security implication here was writing a blog post.
Not sure why you're only looking at that part of it?
- ChatGPT is _satisficing_, not optimal. It's definitely worse than a dedicated decoder tool.
- and it's also much more versatile, so it will be satisficing a large array of tasks.
So in scenarios where precision isn't critical and the stakes are mid, it'll simply become the default tool.
Like googling something instead of checking out wikipedia. Or checking out wikipedia instead of using those mythical primary sources. etc.