• [deleted]@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    Not only is the tech itself trash for what it is being used for, the marketing promotes using it to bypass all of the steps that make a normal process work.

    Vomit out some AI slop and handing it out without any kind of review process bypasses the steps where someone would normally catch human errors or misunderstandings. But since AI is promoted as outputting the final result instantly people aren’t looking at the details and what is why there is so much slop.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      the marketing promotes using it to bypass all of the steps that make a normal process work

      That’s because nobody would adopt it otherwise.

    • pdxfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      The best part is this is as good as the AI slop will get. Knowledge, digitally anyway, via search, peaked about 2 years ago. Primary source information will still be valid digitally…unless authors incorporate slop into their work, which will take dedication and care to do.

      • [deleted]@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        If they used care and dedication they could make the fancy autocomplete return factual information now.

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Only if the training set consists 100% of factual information that is internally consistent.

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            They could use reliable sources to approach 100% instead of jamming literally everything in. For example, limiting the training data to peer reviewed papers would not be exactly 100% but it would be a lot closer than including all of reddit.