• @BlueMonday1984
      link
      English
      292 months ago

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

        • @conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          212 months ago

          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.

      • @Pandemanium@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 months ago

        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.

        • @bitofhope
          link
          English
          162 months ago

          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

    • @selfA
      link
      English
      142 months ago

      what does this have to do with the article