Now the matter becomes to identify the unintelligence expected of ChatGTP in its product.
I see a few (e.g. linking 'Kierkegaard' and 'proliferation'), but it would be probably more interesting to do the same on an article presenting some solid argument.
> Pretty good job
Do you think the summary is really structured? Does it present an argument? Does it identify its nodes?
Or is it more like Woody Allen having made that speed-reading course and concluding that War and Peace is about Russia?
I tried to ask ChatGPT to make a more comprehensive summary but it gave me a very similar output, i think because "summary", to the model, has to match certain conditions of length, it is a very limiting factor; to my understanding, this tool wasn't meant to be used for this type of article (at the moment), instead, i find it perfect for summarizing long blog posts optimized for SEO.
However, if your goal was to just know what to expect from the article and then read it, it made a 'Pretty good job'.
I see a few (e.g. linking 'Kierkegaard' and 'proliferation'), but it would be probably more interesting to do the same on an article presenting some solid argument.
> Pretty good job
Do you think the summary is really structured? Does it present an argument? Does it identify its nodes?
Or is it more like Woody Allen having made that speed-reading course and concluding that War and Peace is about Russia?