> You guess it is a small percentage?

Well I am operating within a space where his doctors are setting the parameters in terms of the pathways targeted, the therapies offered, etc. And I'm asking, how does this therapy work? How is it related to X and Y? How strong is the evidence? Questions like that. I think I can throw the appropriate grain of salt on it, but yeah, some fake facts could creep in. It's stuff that will be validated, but super valuable to just synthesize the lay of the land and give me context for understanding what the docs are saying.

> Curious why do you think you not have gotten these insights that too even from textbooks no less?

Partly just how tailored and conversational ChatGPT is. It gets right at my needed level of explanation. It knows how much education I have. It remembers salient details about my son and his condition. It really explains things well. It knows so much. It's quite remarkable.

[note, i didn't read the article so am not opining on its content in any way. An AI college education sounds terrible in many ways]

> It remembers salient details about my son and his condition. It really explains things well. It knows so much. It's quite remarkable.

Yes but that doesn't mean the answers are right. And while you acknowledge it might be throwing some fake facts in, you don't know what those might be. You still seem to think it is remarkable just because

> It gets right at my needed level of explanation.

And similar issue the AI college education seems to be going through. Someone somewhere created the college slides using AI content and voiceover, didn't know any better but said - Hey, that sounds near to what might be taught in this class. Close enough. Good for college education.