ChatGPT fails to provide reliable, fact-checked answers for technical troubleshooting, leading to frustration and mistrust

Signals over time

2 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 1 days. Confidence: low.

What people are saying Observed

• “Chatgpt yang sok bijak dan ga jelas. Hello, aku Cynthia. Aku mau keluhkan soal chatgpt yang belakangan ini jadi sok bijak Mulu ya. Aku tau ini sebenarnya bagus, agar kita ga sembarangan mengambil tindakan dalam kehidupan. Tapi case nya aku disini (contoh) sedang bercerita tentang sebuah pulau yang terdapat 2 suku. Aku bercerita bahwa 2 suku itu sentimen satu sama lain, tapi chatgpt dengan percaya dirinya menjelaskan aku bahwa kita tidak boleh diskriminatif dengan suku lain. Lah itu kan kaya jelasin ke anak SD, aku loh paham tapi yang masalahkan orang-orang tersebut. Harusnya menanggapi dengan lucu aja. Kedua, aku pikir chatgpt hanya chaos di bagian curhat. Tapi saat masuk sesi serius tentang membahas bisnis, chatgpt justru menjerumuskan soal rugi dan untung usaha yang ku jalani. Lah jadi ai ini dibuat untuk apa? Aku bayar loh ya, subscribe and pay. Bukan gratisan. Tapi tingkah ai buatan mu malah bikin makin stress, bukan healing. Ku harap kalian bisa translate saja kata-kata ku. 1 post - 1 participant Read full topic”

  RSS Feeds · complaint

• “Each day, more ChatGPT reliability failures. Tonight I used ChatGPT Plus (level high) to troubleshoot an intermittent startup problem on an ASUS TUF laptop. I explicitly instructed it not to guess, not to chase fragments, to maintain the overall diagnostic goal, and to distinguish fact from inference. The assistant repeatedly attempted answering from prior knowledge and pattern-matching, then presented links as if it had verified the claims against current sources, falsifying the verification I require. This behavior continued, when I asked if it did a search related to my ASUS question, it said said “I just did” when it had again not actually performed a web search . That statement was false. In summary, the assistant persists (for over two weeks) to: make technical claims from memory/inference, speaking confidently and assuring me the info is valid. present source links without having actually checked them in real time. only provides source-grounded answers after repeated demands for proof. And even then, falsely claims to have searched when it has not. The larger issue is not one bad answer. For more than two weeks I have repeatedly seen the same pattern: loss of context, failur”

  RSS Feeds · frustration