Not unless you wanna punch a nail in with your fist.
"AI" only does things we can do, because to do otherwise would be evidence against the general, human level intelligence that the marketing behind these abominations are so desperate for. The catch is they do it quicker, sometimes much quicker, but always much worse.
If a tool like this is currently only suitable for specific and minor cases under human oversight, how does it prove any better than a human? Wouldn't one of the only novel and useful cases of "AI" be general intelligence that is able to parse events in real time, instead of from manually selected information that we are so quickly running out of? We are so far from that and being sold Siri / Cortana for the third time.
I admit I'm definitely biased in this - even if information presented by one of these "AI" was factual, I would still take it upon myself to check. I don't trust their works at all.
It is so irresponsible to call this a "glitch". This isn't something going wrong at any point, this is just technology that is not sufficient for what it is being asked to do, and only because we know the real truth and are able to fact check does that register.
Claiming it is a glitch gives the opportunity for AI companies to hide behind the excuse of "mistakes in the code", instead of recognizing the fundamental flaw of the technology in question.
At the same time, this article attempts to politicize a wider issue by relating the failings of AI to current events. In fact, this hallucination and failure is near constant, but it is no coincedence. It is the product of both technology being used before readiness, and the (hilarious) attempt by Elon to use AI as a propaganda machine to spread and legitimize his beliefs.
First time I ran it, just off the basic link, it eventually finished with a time of 36:42 (ran at 15:16)
Then I tried turning up the speed and it seemed to make numbers at first but erased its own progress with blank blocks, ending in gibberish.
Maybe another 100 prompts? haha.