4 ms·
No offense but this approach worries me - it seems like a novel mechanism to (perhaps inadvertently) generate and spread false information. It takes a lot of fa
by samvher 4y ago
No offense but this approach worries me - it seems like a novel mechanism to (perhaps inadvertently) generate and spread false information. It takes a lot of fact checking to make sure everything is right, and if you do the research yourself that's a natural part of the process. It seems way too easy to minimize that effort in a process like this.
I was already worried about ChatGPT-like systems generating mass-produced nonsense and polluting the internet, but if people are also going to edit ChatGPT output just enough to make it seem right (a mechanism I hadn't thought of so far), that might make the nonsense a lot harder to detect.
I totally understand the reasoning though, it sounds like a productive workflow.
- k__ 4y agoIt's not as bad as it sounds. And to be honest, I'm happy that this thing can't yet replace my job. But yeah, it helps for more mainstream stuff to get started.
- linkjuice4all 4y agoSo how do you know if it's lying to you if you don't do the research? In the short-term I'm certain that you have the background knowledge to detect when generated content is not quite correct - but going forward as your own personal knowledge atrophies (since you're letting AI do your research) - will you still be able to make sure it's not making everything up?
- k__ 4y agoGood question! I'm not sure. I hope I'm curious enough that my knowledge doesn't atrophy and that I care more about the quality of my work than it might sound when I talk about it on HN.