But it sounds like you still have a tendency to trust it anyway? Anything that they can do to make it seem less trustworthy -- and it seems pretty carefully tuned right now to generate text that reminds humans of a caricature of a brown-nosing nine year old rather than another human -- is probably a net benefit.
As I say in the parentheses after that first comment on trusting it less, I mean it in a human sense, a person being two-faced or ready to exploit you then stab you in the back. While that and factual inaccuracy aren't mutually exclusive, the first paragraph is about how the tone used makes it seem personally untrustworthy.
Being surprised at how poorly it did doesn't mean that I trusted the results in the first place. I had just expected it not to fail so spectacularly and confidently at this point in development.
Also, myself interpreting that tone as untrustworthy (again, in the sense of personality, not information) doesn't mean that others will perceive it in the same way. I was going into this with knowledge of the specific field and an expectation for precise, accurate, and concise communication. I would equally mistrust a human using so much "fluff" and giving such unearned and unnecessary compliments.
That seems like a good thing, given that...
> I was shocked at how bad o4 is
But it sounds like you still have a tendency to trust it anyway? Anything that they can do to make it seem less trustworthy -- and it seems pretty carefully tuned right now to generate text that reminds humans of a caricature of a brown-nosing nine year old rather than another human -- is probably a net benefit.