• brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Can absolutely never blindly trust the hallucinating plagiarism machine.

    It’s great where either facts don’t matter or you’re personally in a position to vet all of its “factual” output 100%. Text revision, prompting for additional perspectives, prompting to challenge beliefs and identify gaps. Reformatting, quick and easy data extraction, outlining, brainstorming.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Reformatting and outlining as long as you go over and revise it again anyway, seemingly making that moot.

      Data extraction as long as you don’t care if the data is mangled.

      Brainstorming is a good one, since off-the-wall ideas can be useful in that context.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        In most cases I’ve seen AI used, the person spends as much time correcting it than they would if they just did the work without AI. So maybe it makes you feel more productive because a bunch of stuff happens all at once, but at least for text generation, I think it’s more of a placebo.

        • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          It can at least get one unstuck, past an indecision paralysis, or give an outline of an idea. It can also be useful for searching though data.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          If all I want is something blatantly false or legible yet nonsensical, like a modern lorem ipsum, it’s a real time-saver.