Perhaps it does save some time; don't know, don't really care, but I'll take your word for it. If you add up the time you spent composing and posing the question to the program, and then added in the time you would inevitably spend "checking its work", so to speak...how much time has been saved?
You do check its work...don't you?
If the continued success of my business or even my actual physical health were at stake, you can't possibly suggest that I would simply take its answers at face value without checking them myself, and likely editing them for my own purposes. I mean, here in this thread we are discussing the ways in which these programs or "AI"s" can produce incorrect responses to what are essentially simple Yes/No questions, based upon how we ask them...but the correct answer to a Yes/No question should not depend upon the wording of the question.
I always monitored the work of apprentices assigned to me when I was in the work force, for safety reasons and because it was my job to do so. In the final analysis, they were not to be held accountable for any substandard work they produced because ultimately I was responsible for what they did or did not learn and for the quality of the work they produced.
Since I was only ever responsible for one or two appies at a time, I often found that the work progressed more slowly than it would have if I had done all of it myself. Teaching them was part of the job, yes, but if the only goal had been to produce finished work, I was better off alone.
To my technoplegic brain, even the staunchest supporters of these talking air fresheners haven't made it sound as though they are much better than the apprentices in this analogy. If you are the sort of person who loves toys and gadgets, and are willing to trust that they work as advertised, they sound cool. If you have come, through experience, to expect that very few of the "latest and greatest" items are actually worth a pinch of s**t...they don't.
