6 ms·

I think this is a bit unfair. The carpenters are (1) living in world where there’s an extreme focus on delivering as quicklyas possible, (2) being presented wit

by judofyr 10mo ago

I think this is a bit unfair. The carpenters are (1) living in world where there’s an extreme focus on delivering as quicklyas possible, (2) being presented with a tool which is promised by prominent figures to be amazing, and (3) the tool is given at a low cost due to being subsidized. And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers? Clearly there’s more problems in this world than «lazy carpenters»?

embedding-shape 10mo ago
> And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers? Exactly, they're not forcing anyone to use these things, but sometimes others (their managers/bosses) forced them to. Yet it's their responsibility for choosing the right tool for the right problem, like any other professional. If a carpenter shows up to put a roof yet their hammer or nail-gun can't actually put in nails, who'd you blame; the tool, the toolmaker or the carpenter?
- judofyr 10mo ago
  > If a carpenter shows up to put a roof yet their hammer or nail-gun can't actually put in nails, who'd you blame; the tool, the toolmaker or the carpenter? I would be unhappy with the carpenter, yes. But if the toolmaker was constantly over-promising (lying?), lobbying with governments, pushing their tools into the hands of carpenters, never taking responsibility, then I would also criticize the toolmaker. It’s also a toolmaker’s responsibility to be honest about what the tool should be used for. I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say «AI is not the problem» with the current state of the industry.
  - jascha_eng 10mo ago
    OpenAI and Anthropic at least are both pretty clear about the fact that you need to check the output: https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup OpenAI: > When you use our Services you understand and agree: Output may not always be accurate. You should not rely on Output from our Services as a sole source of truth or factual information, or as a substitute for professional advice. You must evaluate Output for accuracy and appropriateness for your use case, including using human review as appropriate, before using or sharing Output from the Services. You must not use any Output relating to a person for any purpose that could have a legal or material impact on that person, such as making credit, educational, employment, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other important decisions about them. Our Services may provide incomplete, incorrect, or offensive Output that does not represent OpenAI’s views. If Output references any third party products or services, it doesn’t mean the third party endorses or is affiliated with OpenAI. Anthropic: > When using our products or services to provide advice, recommendations, or in subjective decision-making directly affecting individuals or consumers, a qualified professional in that field must review the content or decision prior to dissemination or finalization. You or your organization are responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of that information. So I don't think we can say they are lying. A poor workman blames his tools. So please take responsibility for what you deliver. And if the result is bad, you can learn from it. That doesn't have to mean not use AI but it definitely means that you need to fact check more thoroughly.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    If I hired a carpenter, he did a bad job, and he starts to blame the toolmaker because they lobby the government and over-promised what that hammer could do, I'd still put the blame on the carpenter. It's his tools, I couldn't give less of a damn why he got them, I trust him to be a professional, and if he falls for some scam or over-promised hammers, that means he did a bad job. Just like as a software developer, you cannot blame Amazon because your platform is down, if you chose to host all of your platform there. You made that choice, you stand for the consequences, pushing the blame on the ones who are providing you with the tooling is the action of someone weak who fail to realize their own responsibilities. Professionals take responsibility for every choice they make, not just the good ones. > I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say «AI is not the problem» with the current state of the industry. Agree, and I wouldn't say anything like that either, which makes it a bit strange to include a reply to something no one in this comment thread seems to have said.
  - pertymcpert 10mo ago
    That’s not what is happening with AI companies, and you damn well know it.
SauntSolaire 10mo ago
Yes, that's what it means to be a professional, you take responsibility for the quality of your work.
- peppersghost93 10mo ago
  It's a shame the slop generators don't ever have to take responsibility for the trash they've produced.
  - SauntSolaire 10mo ago
    That's beside the point. While there may be many reasonable critiques of AI, none of them reduce the responsibilities of scientist.
    - peppersghost93 10mo ago
      Yeah this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. AI's produce trash and it's everyone else's problem to deal with.
      - SauntSolaire 10mo ago
        Yes, it's the scientists problem to deal with it - that's the choice they made when they decided to use AI for their work. Again, this is what responsibility means.
        peppersghost93 10mo ago
        This inspires me to make horrible products and shift the blame to the end user for the product being horrible in the first place. I can't take any blame for anything because I didn't force them to use it.
    - thfuran 10mo ago
      >While there many reasonable critiques of AI But you just said we weren’t supposed to criticize the purveyors of AI or the tools themselves.
concinds 10mo ago
I use those LLM "deep research" modes every now and then. They can be useful for some use cases. I'd never think to freaking paste it into a paper and submit it or publish it without checking; that boggles the mind. The problem is that a researcher who does that is almost guaranteed to be careless about other things too. So the problem isn't just the LLM, or even the citations, but the ambient level of acceptable mediocrity.

by judofyr 10mo ago

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers? Exactly, they're not forcing anyone to use these things, but sometimes others (their managers/bosses) forced them to. Yet it's their responsibility for choosing the right tool for the right problem, like any other professional. If a carpenter shows up to put a roof yet their hammer or nail-gun can't actually put in nails, who'd you blame; the tool, the toolmaker or the carpenter?

judofyr 10mo ago
> If a carpenter shows up to put a roof yet their hammer or nail-gun can't actually put in nails, who'd you blame; the tool, the toolmaker or the carpenter? I would be unhappy with the carpenter, yes. But if the toolmaker was constantly over-promising (lying?), lobbying with governments, pushing their tools into the hands of carpenters, never taking responsibility, then I would also criticize the toolmaker. It’s also a toolmaker’s responsibility to be honest about what the tool should be used for. I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say «AI is not the problem» with the current state of the industry.
- jascha_eng 10mo ago
  OpenAI and Anthropic at least are both pretty clear about the fact that you need to check the output: https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup OpenAI: > When you use our Services you understand and agree: Output may not always be accurate. You should not rely on Output from our Services as a sole source of truth or factual information, or as a substitute for professional advice. You must evaluate Output for accuracy and appropriateness for your use case, including using human review as appropriate, before using or sharing Output from the Services. You must not use any Output relating to a person for any purpose that could have a legal or material impact on that person, such as making credit, educational, employment, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other important decisions about them. Our Services may provide incomplete, incorrect, or offensive Output that does not represent OpenAI’s views. If Output references any third party products or services, it doesn’t mean the third party endorses or is affiliated with OpenAI. Anthropic: > When using our products or services to provide advice, recommendations, or in subjective decision-making directly affecting individuals or consumers, a qualified professional in that field must review the content or decision prior to dissemination or finalization. You or your organization are responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of that information. So I don't think we can say they are lying. A poor workman blames his tools. So please take responsibility for what you deliver. And if the result is bad, you can learn from it. That doesn't have to mean not use AI but it definitely means that you need to fact check more thoroughly.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  If I hired a carpenter, he did a bad job, and he starts to blame the toolmaker because they lobby the government and over-promised what that hammer could do, I'd still put the blame on the carpenter. It's his tools, I couldn't give less of a damn why he got them, I trust him to be a professional, and if he falls for some scam or over-promised hammers, that means he did a bad job. Just like as a software developer, you cannot blame Amazon because your platform is down, if you chose to host all of your platform there. You made that choice, you stand for the consequences, pushing the blame on the ones who are providing you with the tooling is the action of someone weak who fail to realize their own responsibilities. Professionals take responsibility for every choice they make, not just the good ones. > I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say «AI is not the problem» with the current state of the industry. Agree, and I wouldn't say anything like that either, which makes it a bit strange to include a reply to something no one in this comment thread seems to have said.
- pertymcpert 10mo ago
  That’s not what is happening with AI companies, and you damn well know it.

SauntSolaire 10mo ago

Yes, that's what it means to be a professional, you take responsibility for the quality of your work.

peppersghost93 10mo ago
It's a shame the slop generators don't ever have to take responsibility for the trash they've produced.
- SauntSolaire 10mo ago
  That's beside the point. While there may be many reasonable critiques of AI, none of them reduce the responsibilities of scientist.
  - peppersghost93 10mo ago
    Yeah this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. AI's produce trash and it's everyone else's problem to deal with.
    - SauntSolaire 10mo ago
      Yes, it's the scientists problem to deal with it - that's the choice they made when they decided to use AI for their work. Again, this is what responsibility means.
      - peppersghost93 10mo ago
        This inspires me to make horrible products and shift the blame to the end user for the product being horrible in the first place. I can't take any blame for anything because I didn't force them to use it.
  - thfuran 10mo ago
    >While there many reasonable critiques of AI But you just said we weren’t supposed to criticize the purveyors of AI or the tools themselves.

concinds 10mo ago

I use those LLM "deep research" modes every now and then. They can be useful for some use cases. I'd never think to freaking paste it into a paper and submit it or publish it without checking; that boggles the mind. The problem is that a researcher who does that is almost guaranteed to be careless about other things too. So the problem isn't just the LLM, or even the citations, but the ambient level of acceptable mediocrity.