Yes, you are still expected to participate and verify what is said. I also dont copy paste stuff from websites without verification since god knows the internet in general isn’t always right either.
It’s a productivity tool meant to help you, not do the job for you.
What’s the benefit of example code in a project if you have to change it all anyway? What’s the benefit of an article summary if you end up reading the article afterward? What’s the benefit of a college course that just teaches you how to learn on your own (i.e. most of them)?
LLMs are great for some things, terrible for others, just like any tool. Use them for what they’re good at (generating example code, getting an intro to a topic, etc) and not what they’re poor at (greenfield projects, hard questions, etc). As you use the tool more, you’ll get a feel for what it’s good at and what it’s not.
This is it. I remember 15 to 20 years ago there were people who were GOOD at using Google and people who were bad at it. The difference was knowing what the search engine was good at and how to ask it the right questions.
People who just went in blindly and clicked on the first link didn’t get what they needed out of it. Did that make it a bad tool? Probably not.
Using a LLM wrong is just as bad as using the wrong size wrench. Would a giant crescent wrench get a tiny nut off a bolt? Probably, but it would make more sense to use the right size one in the first place.
How did you get “redo” from “verifying sources”? Even if only 10% is good in any case (very rare but it is better at some subjects then others), that is still 10% you don’t have to do. What we currently have is also the worst it’s going to be.
Keep burying your head in the sand but you will just become the laughing stock of your office. You guys are aiming to become this decades “boomer that types with one finger”.
Just the amount of time I save when I ask it to build me tables I can drop into documents is worth it. It’s my information, I just don’t have to copy paste it one by one into excel. People that are anti-AI in professional contexts are actually nuts.
That happy middle ground is so effective, so sad to see people dismissing it as useless. Also sad that people use it for everything and believe it all the time.
Great example of a good use case was using it to spell check my thesis, asking it to explain why it was wrongly spelled and then using my own brain, think if it is correct. That way I am more sure I catch things that I may have missed (suprise, I missed a lot and got helped a lot). Yes 30% was plain wrong but I just ignored that.
Except, I’m constantly trying to figure out what’s right or wrong. At least wikipedia has people fighting about the truth, LLMs just state incorrect shit as truth and then stares at you.
Ask chatgpt the question while outlining your need for sources and direct quotes. (30 secs)
The bot searches. (30 secs to 10 minute depending on if deep research is used. This is free time you can spend doing something else productive, even the same or similar tasks on your end)
Click the links and ctrl-f to find the quote or keywords if its a large document. Verify it isn’t bullshit. (1 min)
4a. It is valid, the link and relevant quotes are added to a work document to be used later (1 min)
4b. It is not valid, the legwork must be done yourself (10-20 minutes, maybe more)
Maybe its because I’m coming from a research perspective, where you need to put sources on everything. I would never take something chatgpt gave me at face value and dump it into a doc. That being said, I feel like the argument boils down to “since the tool can be used stupidly, I won’t try to use it properly”.
And there are many uses for a variety of things. I have it build me summaries of papers when I make a bank of them for example. I just finished reading the paper, so I can verify and modify the summary. I could write it but I dont want to be bothered trying to figure out the best way to give the most info in one paragraph. Chatgpt already writes better hyper condensed blocks of texts then me anyways.
Its good at making tables too and its hard to make mistakes when I’m giving it all the data in the first place.
Except these “experts” are wrong a lot, so you can’t trust them. It’s the confidently wrong that’s problematic.
Yes, you are still expected to participate and verify what is said. I also dont copy paste stuff from websites without verification since god knows the internet in general isn’t always right either.
It’s a productivity tool meant to help you, not do the job for you.
How does it help productivity if you have to redo all of its work?
What’s the benefit of example code in a project if you have to change it all anyway? What’s the benefit of an article summary if you end up reading the article afterward? What’s the benefit of a college course that just teaches you how to learn on your own (i.e. most of them)?
LLMs are great for some things, terrible for others, just like any tool. Use them for what they’re good at (generating example code, getting an intro to a topic, etc) and not what they’re poor at (greenfield projects, hard questions, etc). As you use the tool more, you’ll get a feel for what it’s good at and what it’s not.
This is it. I remember 15 to 20 years ago there were people who were GOOD at using Google and people who were bad at it. The difference was knowing what the search engine was good at and how to ask it the right questions.
People who just went in blindly and clicked on the first link didn’t get what they needed out of it. Did that make it a bad tool? Probably not.
Using a LLM wrong is just as bad as using the wrong size wrench. Would a giant crescent wrench get a tiny nut off a bolt? Probably, but it would make more sense to use the right size one in the first place.
How did you get “redo” from “verifying sources”? Even if only 10% is good in any case (very rare but it is better at some subjects then others), that is still 10% you don’t have to do. What we currently have is also the worst it’s going to be.
Keep burying your head in the sand but you will just become the laughing stock of your office. You guys are aiming to become this decades “boomer that types with one finger”.
Just the amount of time I save when I ask it to build me tables I can drop into documents is worth it. It’s my information, I just don’t have to copy paste it one by one into excel. People that are anti-AI in professional contexts are actually nuts.
That happy middle ground is so effective, so sad to see people dismissing it as useless. Also sad that people use it for everything and believe it all the time.
Great example of a good use case was using it to spell check my thesis, asking it to explain why it was wrongly spelled and then using my own brain, think if it is correct. That way I am more sure I catch things that I may have missed (suprise, I missed a lot and got helped a lot). Yes 30% was plain wrong but I just ignored that.
Except, I’m constantly trying to figure out what’s right or wrong. At least wikipedia has people fighting about the truth, LLMs just state incorrect shit as truth and then stares at you.
Ask chatgpt the question while outlining your need for sources and direct quotes. (30 secs)
The bot searches. (30 secs to 10 minute depending on if deep research is used. This is free time you can spend doing something else productive, even the same or similar tasks on your end)
Click the links and ctrl-f to find the quote or keywords if its a large document. Verify it isn’t bullshit. (1 min)
4a. It is valid, the link and relevant quotes are added to a work document to be used later (1 min)
4b. It is not valid, the legwork must be done yourself (10-20 minutes, maybe more)
Maybe its because I’m coming from a research perspective, where you need to put sources on everything. I would never take something chatgpt gave me at face value and dump it into a doc. That being said, I feel like the argument boils down to “since the tool can be used stupidly, I won’t try to use it properly”.
And there are many uses for a variety of things. I have it build me summaries of papers when I make a bank of them for example. I just finished reading the paper, so I can verify and modify the summary. I could write it but I dont want to be bothered trying to figure out the best way to give the most info in one paragraph. Chatgpt already writes better hyper condensed blocks of texts then me anyways.
Its good at making tables too and its hard to make mistakes when I’m giving it all the data in the first place.