4 ms·
Copilot is not a source. Find where it got that number or don't post. Seriously. It's actively harmful to cite a language model. Would you cite Autocorrect?
by dingnuts 1y ago
Copilot is not a source. Find where it got that number or don't post. Seriously. It's actively harmful to cite a language model. Would you cite Autocorrect?
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y agoIt's a tool like any other. Get used to it.
- Gormo 1y agoIt's a tool, not a source of empirically valid data. No one's going to 'get used' to LLMs being cited as sources of factual information any more than they'd complacently accept someone's Monte Carlo simulation or a hypothetical thought experiment being cited for the same purpose.
- yamazakiwi 1y agoAdditionally, outputs from LLMs can vary by user or prompt, making the data unreliable without clear sourcing or context.
- taormina 1y agoIf you said you Google’d it, we’d still ask for a source.
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y agoThe thing I find amusing is that if I hadn't mentioned Copilot, no one would have batted an eyelash!
- taormina 1y agoIf you claimed that your source was The Onion, you’d get similar responses. You can make a claim, with no source, and expect the traditional answers. When your source is a “known to produce crap” source, what would you expect to hear?