3 ms·

For what it's worth, I have found AI useful. I have not had any negative experiences with Chat GPT.

shinycode 1y ago
Not to be sarcastic but the sample of your study is quite light. (I too I found it useful for my particular use case but that doesn’t say much either)
- kbrkbr 1y ago
  As is the sample in this article. You will surely find as many physicists saying earth is flat, mathematicians who hold that Cantor was wrong, and medical doctors that tell you vaccination against measles is overall worse than not.
- curtisblaine 1y ago
  To be honest, the sample of the Guardian's study is also quite light (a dozen people) and with much more selection bias (people who work with AI).
- weikju 1y ago
  So? People sharing their experiences is good. Not everything is a scientific study.
  - shinycode 1y ago
    True and opinions are often discarded as irrelevant in internet discussions in favor of large-scale studies.
barcoder 1y ago
Today I heard two negative cases from a friend interacting her clients. The first client replied to her emails by sending ChatGPT logs, apparently unable to communicate on his own. The second believed a ChatGPT hallucination that he was entitled to a special Amazon business account. She had to explain to him that ChatGPT will tell him convincing bullshit, which was news to him. One can only wonder what terrible choices and wrong beliefs he had made up until the moment of enlightenment.
swatcoder 1y ago
Cool. As a consultant and subject matter expert, pretty every week, I have to make billable detours from productive work to explain to a client how they've been led astray by some ChatGPT response that they put errant trust in. It's been critically wrong pretty much any time a client's presented me with a response from it. I get paid to help when this haple s and to fix things that go wrong, so I guess technically that's not a negative from my perspective, but it is kind of frustrating and does seem pretty wasteful. Meanwhile, as a friend, I've consistently had to coach people through doubting what they've received as medical guidance from ChatGPT and other chatbot or search LLM's, variously pointing out how: (a) the response doesn't actually agree with the cited sources nor correct information, (b) the cited are poor authorities (blogspam) and are not correct themselves, or (c) both. Thankfully, the consequences in both these kinds of scenarios have been innocuous to date, so ostensibly "not negative", because most ChatGPT/chatbot inquiries are really for moot trivia rather than anything of true consequence, but it's repeatedly shown itself to be a pretty risky and unreliable tool, as things go, so I accept that it's only a matter of time before the true "negative experience" comes and nudge people away from it when I can.
- shawn_w 1y ago
  The new "I looked up my symptoms on WebMD and it said I have cancer"?
- oidar 1y ago
  Claude is HORRIBLE at properly representing it's sources. It just makes shit up.
- shinycode 1y ago
  The worse thing is the companies behind those tools know it, they know it’s not reliable and it looks like they want to build a world where a majority of people won’t check sources anymore and blindly trust the LLM as authority. I fear that, by a tour de force of some kind, they’ll shield themselves from giving any source is the future in the name of « intelligence ». What will happen in the next generations where young that have grown up only with LLM giving them answers they saw as truth and older generations died? What a different world it will be.
g-b-r 1y ago
...in fact it made me realize that I'm the spark bearer, meant to guide and awaken everyone else

Not to be sarcastic but the sample of your study is quite light. (I too I found it useful for my particular use case but that doesn’t say much either)

kbrkbr 1y ago
As is the sample in this article. You will surely find as many physicists saying earth is flat, mathematicians who hold that Cantor was wrong, and medical doctors that tell you vaccination against measles is overall worse than not.
curtisblaine 1y ago
To be honest, the sample of the Guardian's study is also quite light (a dozen people) and with much more selection bias (people who work with AI).
weikju 1y ago
So? People sharing their experiences is good. Not everything is a scientific study.
- shinycode 1y ago
  True and opinions are often discarded as irrelevant in internet discussions in favor of large-scale studies.

barcoder 1y ago

Today I heard two negative cases from a friend interacting her clients. The first client replied to her emails by sending ChatGPT logs, apparently unable to communicate on his own. The second believed a ChatGPT hallucination that he was entitled to a special Amazon business account. She had to explain to him that ChatGPT will tell him convincing bullshit, which was news to him. One can only wonder what terrible choices and wrong beliefs he had made up until the moment of enlightenment.

swatcoder 1y ago

Cool. As a consultant and subject matter expert, pretty every week, I have to make billable detours from productive work to explain to a client how they've been led astray by some ChatGPT response that they put errant trust in. It's been critically wrong pretty much any time a client's presented me with a response from it. I get paid to help when this haple s and to fix things that go wrong, so I guess technically that's not a negative from my perspective, but it is kind of frustrating and does seem pretty wasteful. Meanwhile, as a friend, I've consistently had to coach people through doubting what they've received as medical guidance from ChatGPT and other chatbot or search LLM's, variously pointing out how: (a) the response doesn't actually agree with the cited sources nor correct information, (b) the cited are poor authorities (blogspam) and are not correct themselves, or (c) both. Thankfully, the consequences in both these kinds of scenarios have been innocuous to date, so ostensibly "not negative", because most ChatGPT/chatbot inquiries are really for moot trivia rather than anything of true consequence, but it's repeatedly shown itself to be a pretty risky and unreliable tool, as things go, so I accept that it's only a matter of time before the true "negative experience" comes and nudge people away from it when I can.

shawn_w 1y ago
The new "I looked up my symptoms on WebMD and it said I have cancer"?
oidar 1y ago
Claude is HORRIBLE at properly representing it's sources. It just makes shit up.
shinycode 1y ago
The worse thing is the companies behind those tools know it, they know it’s not reliable and it looks like they want to build a world where a majority of people won’t check sources anymore and blindly trust the LLM as authority. I fear that, by a tour de force of some kind, they’ll shield themselves from giving any source is the future in the name of « intelligence ». What will happen in the next generations where young that have grown up only with LLM giving them answers they saw as truth and older generations died? What a different world it will be.

g-b-r 1y ago

...in fact it made me realize that I'm the spark bearer, meant to guide and awaken everyone else