4 ms·
That's why the 15 minute review process afterwards, at least for a cover letter the factual errors are glaring enough that they can be caught easily, and simple
by polygamous_bat 4y ago
That's why the 15 minute review process afterwards, at least for a cover letter the factual errors are glaring enough that they can be caught easily, and simple enough that they can be edited out in that time. It's not at the stage where I can write my partner a job application bot that scrapes job boards and fires off 50,000 applications per second, but the productivity gain is obvious.
- ajmurmann 4y agoThis to me is what I see want to see as the fallacy in the anti-ChatGPT argument, but at the same time have to acknowledge as the real danger. I think AI paired with a human, as you are describing, can be more effective and efficient than either on their own. However, I've never seen it stay that way in commercial applications. So I'm afraid that the smallest drive towards cost-cutting will lead to removal of the human in the loop or at least tighten throughout expectations so much that the human intervention is in practice more often missing than not. Not sure what to do about this. I want ChatGPT as a tool available to me, but I don't want any service provider I interact with to use it because I know they'll fuck it up eventually and I'll get worse service.
- morelisp 4y ago> I want ChatGPT as a tool available to me, but I don't want any service provider I interact with to use it because I know they'll fuck it up eventually and I'll get worse service. This is just straightforward selfishness and narcissism. No software developer should be so naive to assume they'll always do the right thing with a powerful but incomprehensibly dangerous tool.