3 ms·
Reading through docs and doing research: of course. They're like much better search engines in that regard. It would be silly not to use them. Obviously, you ne
by tptacek 5d ago
Reading through docs and doing research: of course. They're like much better search engines in that regard. It would be silly not to use them. Obviously, you need to review their search results against their sources.
Structuring arguments: bad idea. Here you're having the model do your thinking for you. The problems that occur with having it write text recur at a macro level; too-obvious patterns. Readers just want to know what the prompt was.
Writing the prose: obviously not.
Proofreading: I think this works pretty great, as long as you have a structure to how you're doing it. "How do I make this better or sharper": bad, you're having the model structure your arguments for you. But for a predefined rubric of stylistic things --- writing you know how to do, that's just tedious to check manually? Hard to see a downside.
- sigmoid10 5d agoMost people apparently still don't get that using AI for mere proofreading is the same as using it as a mere knowledge base summary tool. Instead of proofreading, have it be adversarial. Let it try to take apart your argument. The latest generation is extremely good at calling out half-truths and circumstantial evidence across many fields. These days I would not dare to put anything in front of a human peer that hasn't passed at least an AI sanity check review.
- tptacek 5d agoI don't want an AI's opinion on what I'm writing. I want its assessments against an objective rubric. The whole point is not to have the model weights do your thinking for you.
- spencerflem 5d agoThey are much worse at citing sources compared to search engines
- tptacek 5d agoIf you can't find the source and verify it, don't use it. Seems simple.