Not_mikey@Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Replying to @⁨return2ozma@lemmy.world⁩

I can understand why this technology would be particularly addicting to hank.

His whole persona is answering questions like “what color flower do bees like the most” with the kind of enthusiasm that shows his curiosity and deep passion for science. So a machine where you can put in those sorts of questions and get an almost instant answer would be very addicting.

soratoyuki@soratoyuki@piefed.zip

Replying to an earlier post

This is the thing about LLMs and their users I genuinely don’t get. Like, objectively, being able to input plain speech into a computer and get an almost immediate, detailed, 95% accurate answer is incredible. Genuine technological marvel.

But 95% accuracy is functionally useless for all but the most basic, unimportant tasks. Outside of a coding context (a big exception, to be clear), are people really satisfied with that?

AwesomeLowlander@AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works

Replying to @⁨soratoyuki@piefed.zip⁩

Let’s be honest, most sources online are not 100% accurate. Even before LLMs, find any random article about something you’re an expert in, and there was a good chance you’d spot some inaccuracies. Most of the time, those inaccuracies aren’t a big deal, and when they are, you should be consulting an expert for those.

For me personally, I would rate AI accuracy at about 75%. And for some of my use cases, that’s a pretty decent starting point. Things with no consequences, like trying to quickly find the relevant console command for the game I’m playing. I can get instant feedback on whether it gave me correct info, and if not then I hit Google.

I would never trust AI, at least in its current state, to tell me the truth for anything of consequence.

en