I noticed almost everybody here agrees that all AI is bad, and anything produced by AI is slop. and refuse to use any software made in part or in whole with AI or help of AI? Please mention your background and usage of AI with your answer.

I also posted it here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 days ago (12 children)

What I meant is then they can see its limited and be aware that you have to evaluate its response. Its pretty much the same as searching the web was but we all know many people just found something and took it as gospel. Its kinda the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    Yea, and if they're not a master in a field, they cannot validate its output.

    Just because an LLM didn't output garbage for one query does not magically make it less likely to output garbage on a different topic. That's one of many reasons people in the know really hate this. You cannot just trust the output ever, which begs the question, "why do these rich goons all trust it enough to replace jobs?".

    Because they're idiots that cannot validate any part of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    You don't need a masters anymore than you do to read a paper in the field. I mean you can say the exact same thing about web searches. You can use logic and reason combined with some double checking to validate its output. I personally have instructions to provide references for all answers it gives so that I can double check and get a better idea about the thing im looking into. It is disturbing though how much of its output is hidden behind its learning and it can't give you a reference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (9 children)

    Tell me you've never designed and built something truly complicated without telling me.

    Some things don't show up before you see the crash unless you know what you're doing intimately in many fields.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (8 children)

    yeah but that is not what people are using llms for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    People misuse tools all the time. Why defend ignorance with ignorance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    where are you going with this. you said people need a masters degree for what they where going to validate and its just not what people on doing with it. well normal people who knows with corporate stupidity. we are talking about typical folks here though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    You're the one that brought up master's degree. I'm just saying people need to know how to validate the output.

    Just because idiots will misuse something doesn't magically make it ok for anyone else to misuse a tool, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    you said "master in a field" that implies a masters degree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

    Mastery does not require a piece of paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    well I did not realize your bar was that nebulous. Honestly its hard to discuss without really knowning what you mean by the statement. Some vague notion of level a person would need to be in your head? 10000 hours?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Why do you insist on being so pedantic over such a simple concept?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I mean this reply is one I would put a mirror up to. You put this level of user knowledge up but you turn around to not only say my assumed definition is wrong, but go on to not further explain it when asked and instead make an ad hominem argument about the nature of my discourse. I mean Im being pretty specific here on the issue. Honestly your issue with something you made at the start pretty much makes our whole discussion kinda pointless. It would have to be restarted with your terms defined. Here is the thing though. Regardless of your definition what I have said would stand. You change change masters degree to whatever you define mastery is. 10k hours whatever. if you wish just change it to the generic mastery phase. The real problem is you out of the blue did not like the master degree supposition I made but it makes no difference in the discourse chain.

  • source
  • parent