The main use case for LLMs is writing text nobody wanted to read. The other use case is summarizing text nobody wanted to read. Except they don’t do that either. The Australian Securities and…
    • self@awful.systemsEnglish
      17·
      2 years ago

      not reading the fucking sidebar and thinking this is high school debate club fallacy

        • self@awful.systemsEnglish
          10·
          2 years ago

          holy shit, imagine getting a second chance to not be a fucking debatelord and doubling down this hard

          off you fuck

          • blakestacey@awful.systemsEnglish
            9·
            2 years ago

            People just out here acting like a fundamentally, inextricably unreliable and unethical technology has a “use case”

            smdh

            • self@awful.systemsEnglish
              8·
              2 years ago

              fucking right! there’s this unearned assumption that just because the tech’s been invented, it must have worth. and, like, no? there’s so many dead ends in science and technology, and notoriously throwing money at something doesn’t change its fundamental nature

              and now I’m pissed and trying to decide if it’s even worth explicitly adding “don’t be a debatelord asshole” to the TechTakes sidebar, cause it’s not like they’re gonna stop

              • blakestacey@awful.systemsEnglish
                8·
                2 years ago

                “We’re not saying it doesn’t have its flaws, but you need to appreciate the potential of the radium cockring!”

              • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
                7·
                2 years ago

                notoriously throwing money at something doesn’t change its fundamental nature

                to wildly abword a phrase I’ve seen elsewhere: “idiocy can remain solvent longer than you can”

        • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
          7·
          2 years ago

          this argument

          I agree, you’re quite right, and I thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
      13·
      2 years ago

      Unless it doesn’t accurately represent the topic, which happens, and then a researcher chooses not to read the text based on the chatbot’s summary.

      Nirvana fallacy.

      All these chatbots do is guess. I’m just saying a researcher might as well cut out the hallucinating middleman.