Ah i see. I guess I dont care (not in a negative way to you) for something like this where it means nothing to me if these figures are made up as I’ll never think of it again and it satiates the curiosity still.
I will say only really trust LLMs with my field of expertise as I can be confident I know when it’s talking shite.
Why don’t you care about believing true things? You really don’t care if the information being fed to you is true or not? Can you not understand that this is the exact mindset that has led us to the anti-intellectual hellhole we now reside in?
I’m mostly cool with it because they disclosed it was AI up front. Its also a summarization (vs OC), so even if it isn’t exactly correct it probably just mixed up a year/dollar value pairing at worst.
Yup, this (I feel) is one of the few areas where AI is valuable.
I’ve got a buddy who just got hired on at a large company as a software developer. Apparently their code base is so arcane and in such unusual frameworks that they recently fed all their documentation to an LLM and are using that to help onboard new employees (vs trying to have experts try to train up people personally).
While I think having a clean and clear codebase should have been their priority, patching it over with an AI teacher is far from the worst solution.
Brave posting Ai content. Surprised you have more upvotes than downvotes with this crowd.
I’m happy to see things summarised by LLMs, so thanks for the details.
Oh, then surely the Google AI can tell us exactly what it summarized so we can confirm accuracy, right?
If you’re not happy to see it then move along. Why you feel the need to comment on things you don’t like.
I’m happy to see so I’ll stay and engage.
I’m just questioning the use of “summarizing” here.
Ah by bad.
Is it wrong to use that word in the context I did?
Summarise: verb
I’m not sure, that’s why I was asking about the source of what it’s allegedly summarizing.
That’s a problem with Google AI, you can’t be sure if it’s pulling the data from somewhere or just making it up whole cloth
Ah i see. I guess I dont care (not in a negative way to you) for something like this where it means nothing to me if these figures are made up as I’ll never think of it again and it satiates the curiosity still.
I will say only really trust LLMs with my field of expertise as I can be confident I know when it’s talking shite.
Why don’t you care about believing true things? You really don’t care if the information being fed to you is true or not? Can you not understand that this is the exact mindset that has led us to the anti-intellectual hellhole we now reside in?
I’m mostly cool with it because they disclosed it was AI up front. Its also a summarization (vs OC), so even if it isn’t exactly correct it probably just mixed up a year/dollar value pairing at worst.
Must be the time of day, as I’ve disclosed before and been downvoted to oblivion. This place is exhausting at times.
To think I found people more cynical than me, now that’s impressive.
I did skim a bunch of articles first, all with the same info, but they were too long-winded or paywalled to link to. This summary seemed just right…
Yup, this (I feel) is one of the few areas where AI is valuable.
I’ve got a buddy who just got hired on at a large company as a software developer. Apparently their code base is so arcane and in such unusual frameworks that they recently fed all their documentation to an LLM and are using that to help onboard new employees (vs trying to have experts try to train up people personally).
While I think having a clean and clear codebase should have been their priority, patching it over with an AI teacher is far from the worst solution.