2 ms·
You are presupposing that it's not possible for GPT to write a well researched essay, which shows a limited understanding of how to use it well for research. Fo
by OutOfHere 2y ago
You are presupposing that it's not possible for GPT to write a well researched essay, which shows a limited understanding of how to use it well for research. For targeted essays, the audience is a single person, and so there is no reason for someone to iterate on GPT's work; it is sufficient to review it.
- quantified 2y ago> If someone uses ChatGPT to help them write and iterate on a well researched essay about a topic and verifies that the details are correct, I don't see that as slop. Where is the presupposition? The parent comment seems to match your sentiment.
- OutOfHere 2y agoThe presupposition is that one has to write the essay or iterate upon it (using GPT). It is that GPT won't do it all for them. With a sufficiently developed workflow, I believe GPT can do it all. I guess we were thinking of different applications. Yes, a human always has to review the output, but not necessarily to micromanage or edit it further, sometimes only to approve or reject the claims.
- simonw 2y agoThat's why I emphasize "unreviewed". It is an uncontroversial fact that LLMs make mistakes. If a human being has reviewed the output of GPT and is willing to stake their personal reputation on that content being "correct", then I'm happy to read it. If nobody has done that then it's slop and a waste of my time. (Unless of course I requested that information from GPT myself, in which case it's on me to review it before sharing it with others.)