I’ll admit it: I use our good friend, “Chaz G’ParTeux,” as I like to call it, several times a week. Mostly for copy edits (spelling, grammar, phrasing) and personal queries. But sometimes I get lazy and ask for more — snippets of code, even ambitious electromagnetic problem formulations.

That’s where things get interesting. ChatGPT doesn’t bat a thousand. And that’s the point of this post: if you don’t know what a correct answer looks like, don’t rely on AI to get you there.

Large language models are optimized to produce an answer — not to pause and say, “I’m not sure.” You will always get something that sounds confident. And worse, it sounds right. The question is: is it correct, or correct enough for the risk you’re taking?

I’m a fan of these tools. Used well, they’re empowering. But I’ve come to realize that I’m not being replaced by AI just yet. Why? Because you still need deeply experienced practitioners to (1) frame the problem precisely, (2) sanity-check the output, and (3) turn “pretty good” into “no-kidding-great.”

AI can get you moving faster. But getting to the right destination still takes judgment, domain knowledge, and accountability. That’s where Track 2 Analytics comes in — partnering with teams that want the speed of AI and the assurance that the answer holds water.

If you’re exploring AI-assisted analytics, modeling, or signal processing and want a second set of expert eyes, let’s connect.