• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Scams are LLM’s best use case.

          They’re not capable of actual intelligence or providing anything that would remotely mislead a subject matter expert. You’re not going to convince a skilled software developer that your LLM slop is competent code.

          But they’re damn good at looking the part to convince people who don’t know the subject that they’re real.

      • Pandemanium
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think we should require professionals to disclose whether or not they use AI.

        Imagine you’re an author and you pay an editor $3000 and all they do is run your manuscript through ChatGPT. One, they didn’t provide any value because you could have done the same thing for free; and two, if they didn’t disclose the use of AI, you wouldnt even know your novel had been fed into one and might be used by the AI for training.

        • bitofhope@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think we should require professionals not to use the thing currently termed AI.

          Or if you think it’s unreasonable to ask them not to contribute to a frivolous and destructive fad or don’t think the environmental or social impacts are bad enough to implement a ban like this, at least maybe we should require professionals not to use LLMs for technical information