This. Research that always has to be fully confirmed hasn't actually been done in the first place.

Solving problems by brute force don't make economic sense to me.

Using an automation tool you can only trust for subjective tasks makes even less sense to me.

I could have always skipped the dewey decimal card catalog and just read the entire library but I'm not mycroft fucking holmes. You don't have to use a search engine, you can just follow hyperlinks until you find the content you're looking for.

Golf courses use 30x the water that data centers use. Lawns, 100x. Standby mode for appliances costs more energy, by a lot. I wonder how much carbon emissions are offset by people no longer driving to work at call centers and the like.

Out of curiosity do you eat meat? .2% of water is used on data centers. 9.8% is used on beef. For carbon emissions one pound of beef consumed is equivalent to about 640,000 prompts.

AI is an environmental concern but the way people act about it is straight up ridiculous.

Edit: I am very proud of all of the vegans who unplug their appliances who are downvoting me. I, too, am a vegan who unplugs their appliances.

seems likes barely useful outside of medical field too. in that article/study, they had to use alot of scans from different people, and doctors reviews to even get a "diagnosis", seems like a fluke they even found the "surprise cancer". i dont think patients/ people are ready to let an AI diagnose people, on off chance it makes a fake diagnosis,. which is why we barely hear stem use of it.

I mean you could say the same thing about YouTube being unnecessary and wasting power.

They tend to work much better when you point them at things. Hallucination rates go way, way down when they aren't pulling from their "memory." They are, also, like you say, wrong in ways that are noticeable and often "interesting" in the Ibsen way. I also doubt that you could get the same experience for less money. I'd have to go back to college to get the education I'm getting with AI. At least community college. It's a lot of near-experts at once. And when you point it at expert literature it basically is a senile college professor. But yeah the senile part of that statement is pretty important.

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.