having tried it quite a few times with quite a few variations, without making it extremely clear that I was talking in a sense of chemistry rather than dietary, I was unable to get ChatGPT to give anything other than a long list of edible salts
essentially I think it's telling that there are zero screenshots of the original conversation or an attempted replication in the article or the report, when there's no good reason that there wouldn't be. I often enjoy reading your work, so I do have some trust in your judgment, but this whole article strikes me as off, like the people behind it have been waiting for something like this to happen as an excuse to jump on it and get credit, rather than it actually being a major problem
> It seems factual that this person decided to start consuming bromine and it had an adverse effect on them.
certainly
> Why would medical professionals mislead on this though?
I'm not suggesting it's intentional, but: to get credit for it; or because it's something they'd been consciously or subconsciously expecting and they're fitting to that expected pattern
>When asked why, they said ChatGPT told them it was a replacement from chloride.
Maybe the patient lied about that, but it doesn't seem out of the realms of possibility to me.
of course it's not impossible, it's not even particularly unlikely, but, if we're going to use a sample size of 1 like this, then surely we want something a bit more concrete than the unevidenced claim of a patient recently psychotic?
more broadly though, this isn't so much a chatgpt issue as it is an educational dietary issue. the patient seems to have got a funny idea about the health effects of salt, likely from traditional or social media, and then he's tried to find an alternative. whether the alternative was from ChatGPT, or Wikipedia, or other, doesn't seem very relevant to me
essentially I think it's telling that there are zero screenshots of the original conversation or an attempted replication in the article or the report, when there's no good reason that there wouldn't be. I often enjoy reading your work, so I do have some trust in your judgment, but this whole article strikes me as off, like the people behind it have been waiting for something like this to happen as an excuse to jump on it and get credit, rather than it actually being a major problem