Asklemmy

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Have you seen that legal brief?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

No. Communicate please and we can have a real conversation.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago

The person you first replied to asked you to see the legal brief as an example of why they mind using the output as the finished product. You then asked for an explanation. To which I asked you, hey, have you actually looked at that example? You have not.

What exactly do you want here, other than be argumentative for combative reasons?

parent

[–] DokPsy@infosec.pub 2 points 3 years ago

Letting a language model do the work of thinking is like building a house and using a circular saw to put nails in. It will do it but you should not trust the results.

It is not Google. It can, will, and has made up facts as long as it fits the format expected

Not at the very least proof reading and fact checking the output is beyond lazy and a terrible use of a tool. Using it to create the end product instead of as a tool to use in creation of an end product are two very different things.