There are people out there so utterly brain-broken (myself included) who seek to monetize every little personal hobby.
“Maybe I should start journaling” turns into “How can I be a thought leader on bleeping journaling?” And it ruins everything.
I’ve done this multiple times and regret it. I’ve only recently adopted the mindset that this author is attempting to convey, which is simple: identify what you enjoy and why, and just do it - don’t try to exploit it and monetize it (which the author has strangely conflated to “being famous” I think)
So I like the article. It’s a nice reminder. As to the other commenters railing against its “LinkedIn-ness” or it being a platitude, sure - but it’s upvoted and it is what it is now.
The fact that OpenAI already has public moderation APIs for detecting prompt safety, I'd guess there is a lot more internal work going on in determining what prompts to ignore, or what phrases of one's prompt to adjust to avoid responses like this.
Of course this fails. OpenAI continuously states that ChatGPT:
1) Doesn't generate facts.
2) Shouldn't be used for anything useful.
However, your point is still a good one. If Microsoft places ChatGPT somewhere alongside Bing, it'd be easy to mistake it for fact.
In my opinion, this new tool is going to be learned by the public just like Google and generic search was learned by the public. There's a certain way to prompt the machine and we all have certain expectations of what the machine should return.
With ChatGPT, those input/output expectations are vastly different than web search, but people will learn it.