4 ms·
It's a tool like any other. Get used to it.
by HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
It's a tool like any other. Get used to it.
- Gormo 2y 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 2y agoAdditionally, outputs from LLMs can vary by user or prompt, making the data unreliable without clear sourcing or context.
- taormina 2y agoIf you said you Google’d it, we’d still ask for a source.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y agoThe thing I find amusing is that if I hadn't mentioned Copilot, no one would have batted an eyelash!
- taormina 2y 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?