i think the point is that the answer is not reliable. it might be completely correct or borderline wrong, or something in between, and there’s no way to tell without verifying everything it says - and then one could look it up oneself in the first place already.
Im no fan of generative ai, but this argument drives me crazy, there are a lot of things that are easy to verify but hard to come up with, quite famously in fact.
it’s still a crapshoot and therefore useless.
Could you be a little more constructive and point me at the points that are wrong and useless?
Thank you.
i think the point is that the answer is not reliable. it might be completely correct or borderline wrong, or something in between, and there’s no way to tell without verifying everything it says - and then one could look it up oneself in the first place already.
Im no fan of generative ai, but this argument drives me crazy, there are a lot of things that are easy to verify but hard to come up with, quite famously in fact.
If you’re using AI verbatim without looking up answers and verifying results, then that’s on you.
When you Google something, do you take the first result and just assume it’s fact? You shouldn’t for AI either.
If you’re going to do the research anyway, why bother with AI?
Same as most human iterations then?
At least I fact check everything I read. Like I did with this post and the church of the anti-AI got angry they got fact checked.
i didn’t get angry, that was the other guys. just trying to explain it rationally
The part where it gives random results of varying quality, sparky.