You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
28 points

Here’s a better idea - treat anything from ChatGPT as a lie, even if it offers sources

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Scams are LLM’s best use case.

They’re not capable of actual intelligence or providing anything that would remotely mislead a subject matter expert. You’re not going to convince a skilled software developer that your LLM slop is competent code.

But they’re damn good at looking the part to convince people who don’t know the subject that they’re real.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I think we should require professionals to disclose whether or not they use AI.

Imagine you’re an author and you pay an editor $3000 and all they do is run your manuscript through ChatGPT. One, they didn’t provide any value because you could have done the same thing for free; and two, if they didn’t disclose the use of AI, you wouldnt even know your novel had been fed into one and might be used by the AI for training.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I think we should require professionals not to use the thing currently termed AI.

Or if you think it’s unreasonable to ask them not to contribute to a frivolous and destructive fad or don’t think the environmental or social impacts are bad enough to implement a ban like this, at least maybe we should require professionals not to use LLMs for technical information

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 417

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators