I Asked ChatGPT How to Build a PC. It Told Me to Break My CPU.

ChatGPT
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Can an AI help you learn how to perform important tech tasks such as building a PC? With all the hype around generative AI – using artificial intelligence to create new written or visual content – I wanted to find out. The results were eye-opening – and pin-bending.

With the launch of ChatGPT, a free chatbot that uses OpenAI’s impressive GPT-3 language model, anyone can request and, in seconds, get a computer-written article on just about any topic. The main limitation is that GPT-3 is only trained on data going back to 2021, so it won’t be able to write about current events. Oh, and it can also be horribly and dangerously wrong, introducing factual errors that aren’t obvious to someone who isn’t familiar with the topic at hand. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Avram Piltch
Managing Editor: Special Projects

Avram Piltch is Managing Editor: Special Projects. When he's not playing with the latest gadgets at work or putting on VR helmets at trade shows, you'll find him rooting his phone, taking apart his PC, or coding plugins. With his technical knowledge and passion for testing, Avram developed many real-world benchmarks, including our laptop battery test.

  • PlaneInTheSky
    Oh, and it can also be horribly and dangerously wrong, introducing factual errors that aren’t obvious to someone who isn’t familiar with the topic at hand.

    ChatGPT just strings together pieces of text it found online.

    When you prod the algorithm and ask the right question, you quickly find out ChatGPT is just copy/pasting pieces of text.

    ChatGPT was just cleverly marketed as "AI" by the company behind it. Just like Nvidia cleverly marketed simple machine learning from the 70s as "AI", even though these machine learning algorithms are dumb as a rock and a Tesla still can't properly self-park after 1 decade of machine learning.

    Reply
  • drivinfast247
    ChatGPT=Google search
    Reply
  • baboma
    The article's criticism lacks perspective, and has misleading gaffes of its own.

    The 1st ChatGPT (AI hereafter) piece is clearly written a high-level "overview" instruction, not a step-by-step build, which as mentioned further in the piece, would need a specific parts list for more detailed instruction. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that.

    The 2nd AI piece does show the limits of detail that the AI can convey, that one still can't use it as the only guide. But it is still useful as an overview guide. It should be pointed out that the given parts list is incomplete (a case is omitted, which can significantly alter install steps) and vague (types of RAM, type and make of motherboard, etc). The operative judgment here is GIGO.

    As far as gaffs and blunders, the author deliberately exaggerated the AI missteps to sensationalize his piece. Nowhere in the AI response did it use the word 'smush' (which isn't a synonym of 'press'). By now, we all accept the use of exaggerated or embellished article titles (read: clickbaits in varying degrees) for SEO purpose. We know that web sites like this depend on clicks for income, as we tolerate the practice to some extent. But if we are to point out foibles in AI-generated writing, then we should first look to our own foibles, lest we start throwing stones in glass houses.

    Getting back to the AI's capabilities, I'll offer the aphorism: Ask not how well the dog can sing, but how it can sing at all. The author is nitpicking on what is a prototype. Even at its present form, the AI's guide is useful, as it forms a meaty framework that a human guide could flesh out with details, thereby shortening his workload.

    ChatGPT (and its inevitable kinds) will inevitably be improved. IMO, step-by-step how-tos are not a high bar to clear. They don't require any creative thought or reasoning.
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    As far as gaffs and blunders, the author deliberately exaggerated the AI missteps to sensationalize his piece.

    If anything the author is too kind on ChatGPT.

    When an algorithm contradicts itself by saying:

    "France has not won the 2018 World Cup. The 2018 World Cup was won by France."

    ...maybe it's time to admit ChatGTP lacks any intelligence whatsoever, is completely unreliable, and all it does is copy/paste pieces of text together it found online.

    https://i.postimg.cc/8C2RG8td/dgsgsgsgs.png
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    baboma said:
    The article's criticism lacks perspective, and has misleading gaffes of its own.

    The 1st ChatGPT (AI hereafter) piece is clearly written a high-level "overview" instruction, not a step-by-step build, which as mentioned further in the piece, would need a specific parts list for more detailed instruction. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see that.

    The 2nd AI piece does show the limits of detail that the AI can express, that one still can't use it as the only guide. But it is still useful as an overview guide. It should be pointed out that the given parts list is incomplete (a case is omitted, which can significantly alter install steps) and vague (types of RAM, type and make of motherboard, etc). The operative judgement here is GIGO.

    As far as gaffs and blunders, the author deliberately exaggerated the AI missteps to sensationalize his piece. Nowhere in the AI response did it use the word 'smush' (which isn't a synonym of 'press'). By now, we all accept the use of exaggerated or embellished article titles (read: clickbaits in varying degrees) for SEO purpose. We know that web sites like this depend on clicks for income, as we tolerate the practice to some extent. But we are to point out foibles in AI-generated writing, then we should first look to our own foibles, lest we start throwing stones in glass houses.

    Getting back to the AI's capabilities, I'll offer the aphorism: Ask not how well the dog can sing, but how it can sing at all. The author is nitpicking on what is a rudimentary model. Even at its present form, the above guide is useful, as it forms a meaty framework that a human guide could flesh out with details, thereby shortening his workload. It will inevitably be improved. IMO, step-by-step how-tos are not a high bar to clear.
    The problem is....some of these AI generated texts are out there in the wild.

    "I have Problem X"

    Long AI generated text block of how to fix "X".
    Looks really good and knowledgeable. And to the person with the problem, they will go down a long road of "fixes" that may indeed cause more harm than good.

    But the actual problem was Y. And a clueful human would have figured it out in the first couple of sentences of the original problem statement.\
    I've personally seen this in the last few days.

    Classic X/Y.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Tried to talk with IA system but no sucess.
    Reply
  • baboma
    When an algorithm contradicts itself by saying:

    "France has not won the 2018 world cup. The 2018 world cup was won by France."

    ...maybe it's time to admit ChatGTP lacks any intelligence whatsoever and is completely unreliable.

    The issue in question is not whether ChatGPT has "intelligence," but whether it can adequately convey information in conversational form. It's the next step in user interface, when we can simply talk to our device as we would a human.

    Even as a prototype, its capabilities have disrupted several industries, and will transform many more. We've all read about how colleges are changing their curriculum to ward off ChatGPT essays, as well as CNet's use of AI-generated articles. I can think of many more potentially affected industries. Customer service would be a prime candidate.

    Yes, at this point they are error-prone and lacking in flair, etc. But AI capabilities can be iterated and improved upon, while human capabilities generally can't.

    Rather than focusing on its present deficiencies, we should all be concerned with the future implications of just how many jobs will be replaced by AI. CNet's use of AI isn't an outlier, it's only a pioneer. As generative-AI inevitably improves, there'll be more and more web sites using AI to write articles, and the articles will be of a higher quality than the average (human-written) blog pieces today. That's not saying much.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    baboma said:
    The issue in question is not whether ChatGPT has "intelligence," but whether it can adequately convey information in conversational form. It's the next step in user interface, when we can simply talk to our device as we would a human.

    Even as a prototype, its capabilities have disrupted several industries, and will transform many more. We've all read about how colleges are changing their curriculum to ward off ChatGPT essays, as well as CNet's uses of AI-generated pieces. I can think of many more potentially affected industries. Customer service would be a prime candidate.

    Yes, they are error-prone and lacking in flair, etc. But AI capabilities can be iterated and improved upon, while human capabilities generally can't.

    Rather than focusing on its present deficiencies, we should all be concerned with the future implications of just how much human jobs will be replaced by AI. CNet's use of AI isn't an outlier, it's only a pioneer. As generative-AI inevitably improves, there'll be more and more web sites using them to write articles.
    Will it get better?
    Yes.

    Is it there yet?
    Not even close.
    Reply
  • DavidLejdar
    IMO, so-called AI is way overrated (as is). I.e. one could fill the databanks with an association in the lines of: "AI is outperforming every human in having a smelly butt.", and if the bot then gets asked: "What are you perfect at?", the answer would probably be: "I excel at having a smelly butt.". Which may be funny, but hardly speaks of any intelligence when the bot doesn't know, respectively isn't aware, that it doesn't even have any butt to begin with.

    And some school of psychology apparently argues that humans are no different. But even children usually don't end up listing whatever as their accomplishment just because someone else claimed it to be an accomplishment.
    Reply
  • baboma
    Will it get better?
    Yes.

    Is it there yet?
    Not even close.

    Sure, one can play the skeptic and say that it's not something we need to worry about now. But as shown in the news, its capabilities are already something MANY people (educators, laid-off CNet journalists, et al) are worried about. Whether you are worried or not depends on what your job is.

    Again, it's about much more than the potential loss of jobs.
    Reply