OK, you go get a panel of highschool English teachers together and see how useful their opinions are. Lemme know when your post is up, I'll be interested then.
All the things it's supported to be good at are completely subjectively judged.
That's why, u less you have a panel of experts in your back pocket, you need something with a yes or no answer to have an interesting discussion.
If people were discussing ChatGPT's code writing ability, you'd complain that it wasn't designed to do that either. The problem is that it was designed to transform inputs tk relatively beliveable outputs, representative of its training set. Great. That's not super useful. It's actual utility comes from its emergent behaviours.
Lemme know when you make a post detailing the opinions of some university "Transform inputs to outputs" professors. Until then, well ocmrinue to discuss its behaviour in observable, verifiable and useful areas.
Do you think maybe it's a simple and interesring way of discussing changes in the inner workings of the model, and that maybe people know that we already have calculators?