The main use case for LLMs is writing text nobody wanted to read. The other use case is summarizing text nobody wanted to read. Except they don’t do that either. The Australian Securities and…
    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
      21·
      2 years ago

      ChatGPT gives you a bad summary full of hallucinations and, as a result, you choose not to read the text based on that summary.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
          14·
          2 years ago

          But the claims of the text are often why you read it in the first place! If you have a hundred scientific papers you’re going to read the ones that make claims either supporting or contradicting your research.

          You might as well just skim the titles and guess.

            • self@awful.systemsEnglish
              17·
              2 years ago

              not reading the fucking sidebar and thinking this is high school debate club fallacy

                • self@awful.systemsEnglish
                  10·
                  2 years ago

                  holy shit, imagine getting a second chance to not be a fucking debatelord and doubling down this hard

                  off you fuck

                • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
                  7·
                  2 years ago

                  this argument

                  I agree, you’re quite right, and I thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
              13·
              2 years ago

              Unless it doesn’t accurately represent the topic, which happens, and then a researcher chooses not to read the text based on the chatbot’s summary.

              Nirvana fallacy.

              All these chatbots do is guess. I’m just saying a researcher might as well cut out the hallucinating middleman.

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPMEnglish
      20·
      2 years ago

      Both the use cases here are goverment documents. I’m baffled at the idea of it being “fine if the AI makes shit up”.

    • V0ldek@awful.systemsEnglish
      6·
      2 years ago

      if the text is well-written you don’t need this sort of “Gemini/ChatGPT, tell me what this text is about” on first place.

      And if it’s badly written then the LLM will shit itself.

      Now let’s ask ourselves how much of the text in the world is “well-written”?

      Or even better, you could apply this to Copilot. How much code in the world is good code? The answer is fucking none, mate.