It has to be used with caution however. I used it to generate questions and answers for a student quiz bowl contest. This is foundational A&P and for the most part it saved me a ton of laborious pondering about question selection, not to mention typing. It’s easy to get carried away by the ease of what has become a cut and paste exercise, which I nearly did. A few of the answers to questions were egregiously wrong. In one particular Q&A pair, the program insisted that cardiac output is inversely related to blood pressure (the opposite being the case). No matter how I re-worded the question to focus on the simple hemodynamic relationship (not an assumed sympathetic regulatory response, the underlying source of the error I think) the output was the same. So you definitely need to fact check everything.
Yes, very true. It definitely has flaws. Another one is it has been disconnected from the internet since 2021, so when I asked it about Russia's invasion of Ukraine it didn't know what I was talking about.
It has to be used with caution however. I used it to generate questions and answers for a student quiz bowl contest. This is foundational A&P and for the most part it saved me a ton of laborious pondering about question selection, not to mention typing. It’s easy to get carried away by the ease of what has become a cut and paste exercise, which I nearly did. A few of the answers to questions were egregiously wrong. In one particular Q&A pair, the program insisted that cardiac output is inversely related to blood pressure (the opposite being the case). No matter how I re-worded the question to focus on the simple hemodynamic relationship (not an assumed sympathetic regulatory response, the underlying source of the error I think) the output was the same. So you definitely need to fact check everything.
Yes, very true. It definitely has flaws. Another one is it has been disconnected from the internet since 2021, so when I asked it about Russia's invasion of Ukraine it didn't know what I was talking about.