In an effort to appease our CEO and embrace our new AI overlords I spent half a day mucking about trying to produce a short technical document using Co-Pilot.
I wanted to draft a specification for a single component of a relatively niche system only used in a particular type of building.
I told Co-Pilot to only refer to the relevant chapters of one document which I knew to be freely available online in PDF format under Open Government License meaning (as I understand it) there should have been no barriers to Copilot accessing and searching the document.
Worryingly (for my job's sake) it made what appeared to be a reasonably good fist of it, but on closer inspection it all started to unravel. What bothered me more than anything was that instead of referring to the full document as hosted on the publisher's website, it had decided to refer to a partial excerpt it found on one of those dodgy free PDF download websites.
Also interesting was the amount of time I had to spend researching and then debunking one of Copilot's hallucinations, where it had wrongly included a component of a different product and then cited a British Standard which was relevant to neither my product nor the hallucinated product 🙄
What worries me most though is how passable it looked, my job as a technical author could be in jeopardy simply because my customers are now able to churn out passable looking garbage for free and it could go unnoticed for years until something goes wrong and the lawsuits start flying...
I need to wash my car. The car wash is 100 meters away. Should I walk or drive
Walking is the better choice for a 100‑meter trip, unless there’s a specific constraint. It’s faster in practice, avoids hassle, and is gentler on the car.
🚶♂️ When walking makes more sense
- Time efficiency — By the time you get in the car, start it, buckle up, drive 100 m, park, and get out, you’ve spent more time than simply walking.
- Avoids pre‑wash dirt — Driving even a short distance can kick up dust or splash from the road, slightly defeating the purpose of washing.
- No parking/queue stress — Car washes often have tight lanes or queues; walking avoids that micro‑logistics friction.
- Fuel and wear — A cold start for a 100 m drive is inefficient and adds unnecessary engine wear.
🚗 When driving is reasonable
- You need to transport supplies — Buckets, towels, vacuum gear, or detailing tools.
- The car wash requires you to be in the vehicle — Some automated tunnels need you to drive in and out.
- Mobility or weather issues — Heavy rain, extreme heat, or physical limitations.
🧭 A simple decision table
Situation Walk Drive No gear to carry ✔️ Automated tunnel requiring vehicle inside ✔️ You want to avoid dust before washing ✔️ Bad weather or mobility constraints ✔️ You enjoy a quick stretch ✔️
Recommendation
For a 100‑meter distance, walk. It’s cleaner, quicker, and avoids unnecessary engine starts. Drive only if the wash process requires the car to be driven in or you’re carrying equipment.
Is this a self‑service wash or an automated tunnel? That changes the logistics slightly.
Try using metres instead of meters?
Maybe it realises you’re stupid enough to ask questions you already know the answer to, so just messes you about. That’s what I would do.
Try using metres instead of meters?
It autocorrects, which is mostly a good thing when I'm typing prompts.
What worries me most though is how passable it looked,
I may have said this before, but to my mind this is the danger. Not that it's often wrong - it is, a lot - but that when it is wrong it is wrong with absolute confidence.
I asked ChatGPT something trivial like "how many US states begin with 'O'?" and it took multiple iterations of me going, "Really, are you sure? Check again" for it to finally give me the right answer. At each step it gave me variations of "yeah, sorry, I was wrong last time but I'm definitely correct now."
Perhaps more worryingly, this specific question was all over the Internet as an example of ChatGPT getting things wrong. So there's no capacity within its corpus for learning from its own mistakes.
It's engagement, it's the sellers (because that's what they are) wanting, NEEDING you to use _their_ product.
Why would you, as a customer, want to use a product that is worng? A product that is unsure? A product that gives you doubt about its accuracy?
We want these things to massage our egos, to be our friends, people that listen and give us advice that makes us feel good, irrespective of whether it is accurate advice (or the right advice).
It's not AI, it's a customer-focussed chat-bot.
I’ve been using it to get try and get old accessories catalogue info for original Suzuki goodies I can bolt on my quad bike.(handy to be able reference genuine accessories when people put stuff for sale s/h with pictures)
It keeps saying I can show you a rare dealers picture of a quad with the parts attached , just ask to see.
Strangely it can never show me this rare picture but describes what a possible picture may look like.
(I actually know there’s possibly a picture as I’ve seen bits of it floating around)
It bugs me when people use AI in quick mode rather than thinking mode and expect to get sensible replies.
Should it not bug you more that you think that quick mode isn't good enough to get sensible replies, and yet that's what's plastered all over the internet, shoved to the front of search engine results, etc?
“You’re using it wrong.”
Personally, I’m now trying not to use it at all… but do still find myself reading the attempts at answers pushed in front of my face before going on to check what actual people have written.