Comment on Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text, with two exceptions

• Zagorath@quokk.au ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they’re asking anyway

  I’m gonna say that’s ideal but not quite necessary. What’s needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It’s an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don’t necessarily need to be film*makers*, or the P=NP question in computer science.

  source

  • Pyro@programming.dev ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    But if the output has issues, what’re you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI’s mistakes yourself.

    source

    • Zagorath@quokk.au ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you’re completely right. I’m honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

      source

      • Redjard@reddthat.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.

        You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.

        source
    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I can’t draw, but I could probably photoshop out some minor issues in an AI-generated image.

      source
    • Redjard@reddthat.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      If you don’t habe the ability then you would do what you would have 5 years ago: not do it
      Either submit without, or not submit at all.

      source