• floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    If a piece of the model’s answer is genuinely useful, quote it and say why. “I checked with Claude and this part lines up:” works great.

    It still drives me nuts when my boss does that. Especially since the next thing he sends is a bunch of AI-generated code he just wants us to copy and paste into our application. He treats anything the magic AI says as authoritative, and it overrides anything an actual person can say to him.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I am once again astounded at how stupid people are, man. People be sending me AI-generated statements to prove me wrong all the time. I have a family member who always tries to be sly about it but I always see through it and they don’t understand how I do but they sure keep fucking doing it.

      • Jaycifer@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Oh yeah? Well AI systems can be useful for everyday tasks like recommendations or summaries, but their reliability depends on the context and the quality of the data they were trained on. Researchers have developed methods to measure an AI model’s confidence in its answers, which helps users assess trustworthiness in high-stakes decisions such as healthcare or finance.

        So, uh, maybe you should be aware of the high quality data used in training and ask those, uh, other people who throw out LLM answers what the confidence value is before you judge. Ha, got em!

          • Jaycifer@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I am not serious at all, that first paragraph was copy pasted from an LLM button in DuckDuckGo I had to go out of my way to look for.

            A lot of the big models were trained on reddit data with little indication whether there was selection for high quality content, which means to me that the overall training data quality is unreliable. If an LLM can hallucinate an answer, it can hallucinate its confidence value since that is also an answer.

            In other words, I agree with your sentiment.