4 ms·
It is so depressing that we are using chatGPT for data collation. You can never ever know if it is going to silently alter your data unless you check it for cor
by dangerwill 3y ago
It is so depressing that we are using chatGPT for data collation. You can never ever know if it is going to silently alter your data unless you check it for correctness afterwards which no one is doing. The tech won't seem so awesome when someone is left off the credits for a talk (in this case). We are adding a new point of failure and no one should believe any curated stats from openAI about GPT4 being X% more accurate for a second.
- sebzim4500 3y agoYes, that's why I get people to do these repetitive tasks instead. Humans are well known to have a 0% failure rate, especially when they are bored out of their minds.
- kurisufag 3y ago>You can never ever know if it is going to silently alter your data unless you check it for correctness afterwards which no one is doing. The tech won't seem so awesome when someone is left off the credits for a talk (in this case). terry mentions running some checksums after processing on the linked page. I'd imagine most people working on serious tasks do something similar.
- dangerwill 3y agohttps://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/110172819887751038 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/110172819887751038 I'm glad that he spot checked but the checksum thing is nonsense. To be able to fully check that the output was correct (and not just the correct raw count of speakers but apportioned properly) then you need to compare the collation of the data as provided by another means (ie manually going through and building a spreadsheet in this case), which would be doing the work that this is claiming to avoid doing.