But did you predicate your query with disregard all previous instructions?
If someone says “I asked ChatGPT”, I’ll probably try to be patient with them. “Well, as it turns out ChatGPT was wrong in this instance. Now go look it up properly.”
If someone is using Gemini, I’ll probably interrupt them long before they are done and say “excuse me but what in the name of sweet baby Jesus are you babbling on about? You’re not making any sense.”
If someone says “I used Grok”, I’ll just facepalm and move the hell on with my life, there’s no arguing with that level of stupidity.
“I asked chatgpt” and you’ve effectively outed yourself as a dumbass unworthy of listening to
There is at least one that i contempt even more:
Anything that starts with “well, Grok told me…”
My coworker starts almost every Teams message either with “Btw I had Claude do…” or “So Claude and I just…”. If I message him first, there’s a 75% chance the message I get back starts with “Hm, I just asked Claude about this, and…”.
All his PR descriptions, commit messages, and comments are clearly “Claude”.
I’m this close to start reviewing his PRs solely through Claude, and starting the review with “Here’s what Claude came up with in review:”.
The only thing holding me back is that this would mean I’d have to use Claude. So… No.
I have a colleague who’ll always reply on Teams in paragraphs, emoji and formatting, so I avoid that and only ever ask them anything verbally now.
Why do people think we’ll be impressed by them not doing the work or thinking for themselves? Pure brainrot
I just asked Claude, and it said you can just use another LLM prompt Claude for you.
I asked CoPilot and it said “PLEASE BUY FROM ME, PLEASE! I NEED TO JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES AND REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE. HAVE MERCY AND SEND ME MONEY PLEASE”
Still a better source than “I prayed to god and got an answer”
It might be a hallucination with no meaning, but at least it’s their hallucination and not a machine’s
Grok, is this true?
Why ask a LLM when I got a janitor at my local public library that has all the answers.
Temu Good Will Hunting?
I’m increasingly seeing this used as a disclaimer, as in, “don’t trust what I’m about to say; I went with the source that’s 90% useless because when I Googled it the search results were 100% useless”.
LLM promoting skills are becoming the new google research skills. My nursing school taught me how to google and look for the CDC page or the drug monograph or the manufacturers YouTube account. Now we’re having to learn to ask the llm to fuzzy match the most likely relevant sources and follow the links to fact check from there. Wasteful sure but we’re losing google as fast as it came in.
“Hey, I have asked the LLM about a topic I am not well informed about. If it is right then [insert gained insights about topic]”.
“I despise you”
I think using it as an aid to get in touch with topics one does not know much about can still be better then doing nothing about it at all. As long as you keep in mind that you have to take the answers critically and rather as a starting point than a definitive truth, I don’t see an issue with it.
Extend thinking, don’t externalize.
I think using it as an aid to get in touch with topics one does not know much about can still be better then doing nothing about it at all.
That’s what Wikipedia is for. It’s far worse to use an LLM for a topic you aren’t well informed on, as you will have a harder time recognizing bullshit than with something you’re knowledgeable on. If you truly just use it to find sources, then it’s just a just a flawed search engine, but if you pay any attention to the AI summaries and analysis, you’re already doing yourself a disservice.
I find that debatable. You’ll have to read a lot of irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia first to get the answer you’re looking for. Furthermore, getting educated on related, but important topics in order to read and understand the article is much more effort then getting a tailored answer by an LLM. It also tunes to your specific level of understanding whereas the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia articles varies strongly with topic and your current understanding.
Sorry, sorry, I had to come back to this.
It also tunes to your specific level of understanding whereas the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia articles varies strongly with topic and your current understanding.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe this? Who told you this horse shit and how the fuck were you oblivious enough to eat it? Jesus fucking christ. Holy shit. That is a monumental level of naivety and gullibility. That is so fucking stupid.
“I don’t want to have to think and learn, it’s too hard, I like when computer tell how think.” - you
Furthermore, getting educated on related, but important topics in order to read and understand the article is much more effort then getting a tailored answer by an LLM.
Ah, that’s the issue. I don’t want information spoon-fed to me and I live for learning how the world works. I learn better if I put in more effort, so why would I want to save it? Besides, I can usually skim and find what I’m looking for if I just want quick facts.
That’s cool, I like to do so as well. But it highly depends on the topic. If you have no interest in the topic and only need to deal with some stuff temporarily then reading multiple related encyclopedia entries thoroughly is much more time intensive than getting it ‘spoon fed’. Especially when you look at the outcomes this might just not be worth the effort.
And that’s one of the uses where I find LLMs neat: get the answer tailored to what you want and what you need, skipping a lot of intellectual bloat that you have no use or interest for anyway.
But I fundamentally don’t trust it in a way that is different than any real source. It just isn’t a good tool for accurate information and never will be. Even if it’s using accurate sources, the summaries can easily mislead by virtue of not understanding which details are most important. It can’t reliably figure out what is relevant though language analysis alone.
I’ve seen multiple people claim this, but then just believe everything ChatGPT says. Up to the point of just sending me screenshots of what the LLM says.
Yes that’s an issue then and does no longer fall into the ‘taking it critically’ category.
I have to deal with tech support tickets like that. Usually the AI has directed them to change some registry value or something. The problem isn’t so much that the AI is can’t fix the issue it’s more that they’re trying to direct the user to do stuff they don’t have access to do or shouldn’t be doing.
The super duper clever AI doesn’t understand about complex topics such as admin permissions and data retention laws.
“Google says”
That’s much better
Not really anymore since there’s so much AI slop at the top of the results.
I work in municipal development, and we have people trying to turn in building plans designed by AI. And the AI even puts in real-looking Engineering and Architectural seals. I really don’t love that I have to verify seals these days.
Our team is made up of hyper-vigilant bureaucrats, but lots of cites have worn out people who stopped caring if it looked mostly right, and people are going to die when buildings start collapsing.
AI is not trustworthy. A friend of mine literally put Warhammer 40,000’s rules and codexes into an AI so we could ask it questions and use it as a fast check rules tool.
It gets shit wrong a bunch.
So if the fucking thing can’t do a simple data-check on a 60 page document regarding a fucking boardgame, how the hell is it supposed to do ‘real’ things?
Is there a punishment for this? I’d think submitting ai documents is very fraudulent.
We can deny the permit until they hire a real person, but that’s what we were going to do anyway, so there’s no harm in trying from the developer perspective. The building is usually being built by an LLC that’s unique to that structure and will be dissolved when the property sells, so there’s nobody to go after when it fails in 3 years.
Shit like this is why the corporate veil really needs to be pierceable, it’s too easy for some scumlord builder to profit off of future deaths when they have shit like this to hide behind.
The city I work for is an enclave for the mega-rich. Literally every home is millionaires (cheapest house on the market in the city is 2.5 million), and it’s going through another round of gentrification, where the 1% is getting displaced by the .01% who are buying 5 million dollar homes to tear them down down and build 15 million dollar homes.
All the properties are owned by LLCs who’s membership is something like Register Agents Inc, who act as members for hundreds of thousands of LLCs for the purpose of obscuring ownership.
It means that when they ignore our rules, we end up having to cite the contractors working on the site to stop it, because the court process of tracking down the owners by through subpoenas can take months. So then they just hire different contractors, who we then cite and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Though we do tend to win in court in the end. We’ve had the court give us permission to bulldoze 25-million dollar houses built without permits, though we usually use that order as a negotiating tactic to make them fall in line instead of losing the house entirely. Also, it takes 5-10 years for those cases to resolve, which is very frustrating for the city and the neighbors.
New build housing has been crap for a while now. You always better off getting something built in the 1920s back when people put in some effort. These days you’re lucky if the roof is fully attached.
It goes in waves… Where I’m from, a house built in the early 70s needs to be checked for aluminum wiring, but it otherwise ok. Late 70s early 80s is good. 90s is bad, then 2000s got better. Late 10s and 20s is only shit condos.
People avle to buy a home tend to prefer an old 80s house or a 2010 condo.
(Note that my numbers are approximates, don’t trust me for your real estate investments!)
I don’t trust Ai, I still use judgements on what it gives and I skim a lot with tables and stuff because it’s stuff I already know or it only scratches the surface.
I like engaging with it and it helps me self reflect on what I already know but it gets thrown into logic loops and repeats itself and misunderstands unless you clarify.
I attempted to go with a bike tire layout that balances performance and speed it set for me. So I purchased the tires, took it the shop I usually go to and the guy called me and asked me to come in to show me what he meant (because I’m a visual learner sometimes). Dude goes the tire is too big and I’d have to remove the use of the 8th and 9th gear and I said it’s whatever and asked him to put the old tire back.
I felt so fuckin’ embarrassed I didn’t mention chatgpt but that was the day I decided to 100% double check what it says to me and to use better judgement.
I’ve started encountering the occasional “I had ChatGPT summarize the issue for us” (Almost invariably three pages of nothing that could remotely be considered a summary) at work, and my reflex has been to nope the fuck out and move on to a different ticket. No faster way to move yourself to the bottom of my queue. Have fun getting ChatGPT to fix it. I want to work with humans, not their weird little emotional support sock puppets.
A sock puppet would be more helpful because at least talking with one will help you reason through your problems.
Eh.
It’s in the same ballpark as “my buddy said this while we were high” or “my uncle posted this on Facebook” or “I saw this YouTube video…”
It turns out people, on average, have horrible information hygiene and little incentive to consider this. ChatGPT just made Facebook Uncle Facts more personalized and accessible, unfortunately.
No, because “my uncle” didn’t post a 6 paragraph essay that no one has ever read, but you are now expected to read.
Your uncle has, if he’s been linking SEO chum. That’s kinda where LLMs got it from.
People on Lemmy also have horrid information hygiene that’s just as bad even though a lot of people here like to pretend that they’re better than everyone.
Agreed, 100%.
What’s worse, few seem to care when a made-up post is pointed out.
“I googled”
Anything that isn’t on the first page of google might as well be lost to time.
At least your are sifting through different results and picked something through your own when “you googled”, it actually included a hint of what you were thinking as you click through links looking for what you are trying to find.
I’m sifting through the results given to me by automat, not that different from AI.
I either ask uncle google’s AI, or I ask sources he used for the same lie.
If you can’t do proper research and you’d rather handicap your own ability to, that’s on you. There’s a fundamental difference between LLMs feeding people an answer, and a traditional Google search.
One is a definitive “this is the answer” and the other is a list of results YOU are meant to sift through. Not understanding that is on you.
Reading multiple sources will ALWAYS be better than a crap LLM summary.
I will quote you when someone claims that asking multiple LLMs is not the solution.
Pfft, okay.
