You can take "justifiable" to mean whatever you feel it means in this context. e.g. Morally, artistically, environmentally, etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

If you ask for quotes and explanations it would help, i.e. treat the LLM output as a smart index/table of contents. You'd be able to quickly verify claims

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    As long as you follow through to actually source the original, instead of assuming the quotes provided are intact. The point was in the case above, DOGE was doing no follow up, and most people who look to that as a 'summary' assistant aren't wanting to dig deeper.

    Hell, even without AI lawmakers frequently got caught admitting they didn't read the law they signed, they didn't have time for that. Now with AI summaries as an excuse...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's a tool, like everything else. It's easy to google wrong info. You can get wrong info from an encyclopedia.

    You can even from a dictionary: One thing that slightly annoys me is the change in the spelling of "yeah" such that "yea" is a common alternate spelling - thanks to autocorrect. "Yea" was a word - it's archaic these days. If you see someone say "Yay or nay" that was "yea or nay". "Yea" is not the same meaning as "yes" or "yeah", although it is somewhat similar.

    I remember someone quoting dictionary definitions to me to try and "prove" that "yea" meant the exact same as "yeah" or "yes".

    They were wrong.

    But the point is: The tool is just a tool. AI is a tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments