• halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The takeaway from all LLM-based AI is the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they’re asking anyway. All output needs to be verified before being used or relied upon.

    The “AI” is just streamlining the process to save time.

    Relying on it otherwise is stupid and just proves instantly that you are incompetent.

    • Zagorath@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they’re asking anyway

      I’m gonna say that’s ideal but not quite necessary. What’s needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It’s an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don’t necessarily need to be filmmakers, or the P=NP question in computer science.

      • Pyro@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        But if the output has issues, what’re you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI’s mistakes yourself.

        • 42firehawk@fedinsfw.app
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          In Wikipedias case, you just fail to make an edit/new post. So you can verify if Ai can make a usable post up to standard with people who can verify but not make, hopefully saving enough time and bulk to help that group learn to make properly, as well as leave the ones Ai will fuck up to people who can do it right.