3 ms·
I couldn't disagree more. Its like someone going to Wikipedia to helpfully copy and paste a summary of an issue. Fast and with a good enough level of accuracy.
by cm2012 1y ago
I couldn't disagree more. Its like someone going to Wikipedia to helpfully copy and paste a summary of an issue. Fast and with a good enough level of accuracy.
Generally the AI summaries I see are more topical and accurate than the many other comments in the thread.
- Velorivox 1y agoReally!? [0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png
- cm2012 1y agoYou shouldn't compare against perfection, but against reality. ChatGPT o3 has been proven to outperform even experts on knowledge tasks quite a bit. In general it raises the mean accuracy and info of a given thread. Its like self driving cars.
- lysace 1y agoThey are mostly posturing. I don't see any problem sharing a human-reviewed LLM output. (I also figure that human review may not be that necessary in a few years.)
- mook 1y agoBut it's the human review that makes it not rude; not bothering to review means you're wasting the other person's time. If they wanted a chatbot response they could have went to the LLM directly. It's like pointing to a lmgtfy link. That's _intentionally_ rude, in that it's normally used when the question isn't worth the thought. That's what pasting a chatbot response says.