In University I knew a lot of students who knew all the things but “just don’t know where to start” - if I gave them a little direction about where to start, they could run it to the finish all on their own.
Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
Outbound7404@lemmy.ml 1 week agoA human can review something close to correct a lot better than starting the task from zero.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 week ago
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It is a lot harder to notice incorrect information in review, than making sure it is correct when writing it.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 week ago
That depends entirely on your writing method and attention span for review.
Most people make stuff up off the cuff and skim anything longer than 75 words when reviewing, so the bar for AI improving over that is really low.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Depends on the context, there is a lot of work in the scientific methods community trying to use NLP to augment traditionally fully human processes such as thematic analysis and systematic literature reviews and you can have protocols for validation there without 100% human review