4 ms·

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

by SauntSolaire 11mo ago

peppersghost93 11mo ago
It's a shame the slop generators don't ever have to take responsibility for the trash they've produced.
- SauntSolaire 11mo ago
  That's beside the point. While there may be many reasonable critiques of AI, none of them reduce the responsibilities of scientist.
  - peppersghost93 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
    - SauntSolaire 11mo ago
      No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work. Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility.
      - thfuran 11mo ago
        >No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work. No, you expressed unqualified agreement with a comment containing “And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers?” >Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility. People don’t exist or act in a vacuum. That a scientist is responsible for the quality of their work doesn’t mean that a spectrometer manufacture that advertises specs that their machines can’t match and induces universities through discounts and/or dubious advertising claims to push their labs to replace their existing spectrometers with new ones which have many bizarre and unexpected behaviors including but not limited to sometimes just fabricating spurious readings has made no contribution to the problem of bad results.
        SauntSolaire 11mo ago
        You can criticize the tool or its makers, but not as a means to lessen the responsibility of the professional using it (the rest of the quoted comment). I agree with the GP, it's not a valid excuse for the scientist's poor quality of work.
        thfuran 11mo ago
        I just substantially edited the comment you replied to.
        SauntSolaire 11mo ago
        The scientist has (at the very least) a basic responsibility to perform due diligence. We can argue back and forth over what constitutes appropriate due diligence, but, with regard to the scientist under discussion, I think we'd be better suited discussing what constitutes negligence.
adestefan 11mo ago
The entire thread is people missing this simple point.
bossyTeacher 11mo ago
Well, then what does this say of LLM engineers at literally any AI company in existence if they are delivering AI that is unreliable then? Surely, they must take responsibility for the quality of their work and not blame it on something else.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  I feel like what "unreliable" means, depends on well you understand LLMs. I use them in my professional work, and they're reliable in terms of I'm always getting tokens back from them, I don't think my local models have failed even once at doing just that. And this is the product that is being sold. Some people take that to mean that responses from LLMs are (by human standards) "always correct" and "based on knowledge", while this is a misunderstanding about how LLMs work. They don't know "correct" nor do they have "knowledge", they have tokens, that come after tokens, and that's about it.
  - amrocha 11mo ago
    it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do. Lawyers are running their careers by citing hallucinated cases. Researchers are writing papers with hallucinated references. Programmers are taking down production by not verifying AI code. Humans were made to do things, not to verify things. Verifying something is 10x harder than doing it right. AI in the hands of humans is a foot rocket launcher.
    - embedding-shape 11mo ago
      > it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do. Again, true for most things. A lot of people are terrible drivers, terrible judge of their own character, and terrible recreational drug users. Does that mean we need to remove all those things that can be misused? I much rather push back on shoddy work no matter what source. I don't care if the citations are from a robot or a human, if they suck, then you suck, because you're presenting this as your work. I don't care if your paralegal actually wrote the document, be responsible for the work you supposedly do. > Humans were made to do things, not to verify things. I'm glad you seemingly have some grand idea of what humans were meant to do, I certainly wouldn't claim I do so, but I'm also not religious. For me, humans do what humans do, and while we didn't used to mostly sit down and consume so much food and other things, now we do.

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

peppersghost93 11mo ago

It's a shame the slop generators don't ever have to take responsibility for the trash they've produced.

SauntSolaire 11mo ago
That's beside the point. While there may be many reasonable critiques of AI, none of them reduce the responsibilities of scientist.
- peppersghost93 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
  - SauntSolaire 11mo ago
    No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work. Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility.
    - thfuran 11mo ago
      >No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work. No, you expressed unqualified agreement with a comment containing “And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers?” >Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility. People don’t exist or act in a vacuum. That a scientist is responsible for the quality of their work doesn’t mean that a spectrometer manufacture that advertises specs that their machines can’t match and induces universities through discounts and/or dubious advertising claims to push their labs to replace their existing spectrometers with new ones which have many bizarre and unexpected behaviors including but not limited to sometimes just fabricating spurious readings has made no contribution to the problem of bad results.
      - SauntSolaire 11mo ago
        You can criticize the tool or its makers, but not as a means to lessen the responsibility of the professional using it (the rest of the quoted comment). I agree with the GP, it's not a valid excuse for the scientist's poor quality of work.
        thfuran 11mo ago
        I just substantially edited the comment you replied to.
        SauntSolaire 11mo ago
        The scientist has (at the very least) a basic responsibility to perform due diligence. We can argue back and forth over what constitutes appropriate due diligence, but, with regard to the scientist under discussion, I think we'd be better suited discussing what constitutes negligence.

adestefan 11mo ago

The entire thread is people missing this simple point.

bossyTeacher 11mo ago

Well, then what does this say of LLM engineers at literally any AI company in existence if they are delivering AI that is unreliable then? Surely, they must take responsibility for the quality of their work and not blame it on something else.

embedding-shape 11mo ago
I feel like what "unreliable" means, depends on well you understand LLMs. I use them in my professional work, and they're reliable in terms of I'm always getting tokens back from them, I don't think my local models have failed even once at doing just that. And this is the product that is being sold. Some people take that to mean that responses from LLMs are (by human standards) "always correct" and "based on knowledge", while this is a misunderstanding about how LLMs work. They don't know "correct" nor do they have "knowledge", they have tokens, that come after tokens, and that's about it.
- amrocha 11mo ago
  it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do. Lawyers are running their careers by citing hallucinated cases. Researchers are writing papers with hallucinated references. Programmers are taking down production by not verifying AI code. Humans were made to do things, not to verify things. Verifying something is 10x harder than doing it right. AI in the hands of humans is a foot rocket launcher.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    > it’s not “some people”, it’s practically everyone that doesn’t understand how these tools work, and even some people that do. Again, true for most things. A lot of people are terrible drivers, terrible judge of their own character, and terrible recreational drug users. Does that mean we need to remove all those things that can be misused? I much rather push back on shoddy work no matter what source. I don't care if the citations are from a robot or a human, if they suck, then you suck, because you're presenting this as your work. I don't care if your paralegal actually wrote the document, be responsible for the work you supposedly do. > Humans were made to do things, not to verify things. I'm glad you seemingly have some grand idea of what humans were meant to do, I certainly wouldn't claim I do so, but I'm also not religious. For me, humans do what humans do, and while we didn't used to mostly sit down and consume so much food and other things, now we do.