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
Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 5 days agoIt is a lot harder to notice incorrect information in review, than making sure it is correct when writing it.
loonsun@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
MangoCats@feddit.it 5 days 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.