Thesis: Interesting work is less amenable to the use of AI

A Danish audio newspaper host / podcaster had the exact apposite conclusion when he used ChatGPT to write the manuscript for one his episodes. He ended up spending as much time as he usually does because he had to fact check everything that the LLM came up with. Spoiler: It made up a lot of stuff despite it being very clear in the prompt, that it should not do so. To him, it was the most fun part, that is writing the manuscript, that the chatbot could help him with. His conclusion about artificial intelligence was this:

“We thought we were getting an accountant, but we got a poet.”

Frederik Kulager: Jeg fik ChatGPT til at skrive dette afsnit, og testede, om min chefredaktør ville opdage det. https://open.spotify.com/episode/22HBze1k55lFnnsLtRlEu1?si=h...

It's not the exact opposite*, the author said that if you're doing boilerplate _code_ it's probably fine.

The thing is that since it can't think, it's absolutely useless when it comes to things that hasn't been done before, because if you are creating something new, the software won't have had any chance to train on what you are doing.

So if you are in a situation in which it is a good idea to create a new DSL for your problem **, then the autocruise control magic won't work because it's a new language.

Now if you're just mashing out propaganda like some brainwashed soviet apparatchik propagandist, maybe it helps. So maybe people who writes predictable slop like this the guardian article (https://archive.is/6hrKo) would be really grateful that their computer has a cruise control for their political spam.

) if that's what you meant *) which you statistically speaking might not want to do, but this is about actually interesting work where it's more likely to happen*