Comment

Comment on Why I am not impressed by A.I.

spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The dumbed down text is basically as long as the prompt. Plus you have to double check it to make sure it didn’t have outrage instead of outage just like if you wrote it yourself.

Are you really saving time?

source

Sort:hotnew top

L3s@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Yes, I’m saving time. As I mentioned in my other comment:

Yeah, normally my “Make this sound better” or “summarize this for me” is a longer wall of text that I want to simplify, I was trying to keep my examples short.

And

and helps correct my shitty grammar at times.

And

Hallucinations are a thing, so validating what it spits out is definitely needed.

source
- spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  How do you validate the accuracy of what it spits out?
  
  Why don’t you skip the AI and just use the thing you use to validate the AI output?
  
  source
  - L3s@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Most of what I’m asking it are things I have a general idea of, and AI has the capability of making short explanations of complex things. So typically it’s easy to spot a hallucination, but the pieces that I don’t already know are easy to Google to verify.
    
    Basically I can get a shorter response to get the same outcome, and validate those small pieces which saves a lot of time (I no longer have to read a 100 page white paper, instead a few paragraphs and then verify small bits)
    
    source
earphone843@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Dumbed down doesn’t mean shorter.

source
- spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If the amount of time it takes to create the prompt is the same as it would have taken to write the dumbed down text, then the only time you saved was not learning how to write dumbed down text. Plus you need to know what dumbed down text should look at to know if the output is dumbed down but still accurate.
  
  source