@noybeu reading the article I couldn't help but wonder if some folk deliberately misunderstand what AI is. In particular the I part. What part of an encyclopaedia is intelligent? It's a basic store of information. It can be read, edited corrected where wing and so on.

But a AI is thus named as it is loosely modelled on the imagined workings of a brain. A neutral network ... It's also a word used in the arena for similar reasons.

And the goal is for a similar outcome. That is, learning, which captures information in a form that permits recollection only by reconstruction (much like the brain) and in responding to a prompt or request, to assemble a truly judged most likely to please, an idea governer by a button of familiarity and being the kind of reply we're confident we've heard to similar questions etc...

But you get my drift... Open AIb is not being evasive or inconsiderate. They are working on AI, they can't easily predict is responses nor modify them etc, any more than you can your colleagues brain. The very thing that is evening AI is the ability to handle an abundance of abstract data in real time ... Stored as weights abstracted from learning inputs.

It is no more likely to spit out actuate facts than, wait for it, the brains it is being modelled on. The winner point of the I in AI is being able to reassemble learnings in novel ways and to respond to prompts with diverse goals etc.

In a nutshell, who is surprised that it can and does say untrue things... That would seem to be an inherent property of the endeavour.