the_riviera_kid@the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world

Replying to @⁨return2ozma@lemmy.world⁩

I like Hank, and this is a shitty article.

That aside he should be facing a revolt.

Hes supposed to be a credible source, hes an educator, hes the modern day Bill Nye. It’s very hard to take anything he says as objective truth when his research and fact checking consists of asking an LLM. Considering hallucinations and straight up lies are not only common but not even unexpected for an LLM you can’t believe anything that comes from one nor can you believe anyone who uses one.

AA5B@AA5B@lemmy.world

Replying to @⁨sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone⁩

But why? If you try to be objective, how is this any different from an op Ed or other published article? Those are good starting points as well, but also shouldn’t be published as your work or trusted as is.

The problem with LLMs is not when people use them as a tool, but when they use inappropriately, blindly trust them or treat them as a final result instead of thinking, reviewing, or adding value.

AA5B@AA5B@lemmy.world
edited

Replying to @⁨sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone⁩

I can’t speak for all LLMs but the ones I use

  • web based LLM cites its sources. You can just click
  • coding LLM tends to have obvious sources (for example if I tell it to use a vendor API to do something, I know there’s API documentation as the source of truth and the script is just like the example I would previously have found on StackOverflow.com).

And yes, I frequently check its work and iterate through telling it to