Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article discusses the difficulty of uploading textbooks, standards, and manuals into ChatGPT for reference purposes. The author expresses a desire to provide ChatGPT with an engineering standard to assist in answering certain questions while adhering to specific criteria. However, the author notes that it is not possible to browse the internet or access documents beyond the training data.

The article does not appear to have any significant biases or one-sided reporting. However, it does lack evidence for some of its claims and fails to explore counterarguments fully. For example, the author claims that copying and pasting a standard into the chat is too time-consuming. Still, there is no evidence provided to support this claim.

Additionally, the article does not consider alternative solutions to the problem of uploading textbooks and standards into ChatGPT. For example, it may be possible to convert these materials into a format that can be easily uploaded into ChatGPT.

There is also no discussion of potential risks associated with uploading large amounts of copyrighted material into ChatGPT. This omission could be seen as promotional content since it implies that there are no legal or ethical concerns associated with using copyrighted materials in this way.

Overall, while the article raises an interesting question about how best to upload reference materials into ChatGPT, it lacks depth and nuance in its analysis. It would benefit from more research and consideration of alternative solutions and potential risks associated with using copyrighted materials in this way.