←back to thread

321 points distantprovince | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
1. cm2012 ◴[] No.44617559[source]
I couldn't disagree more. Its like someone going to Wikipedia to helpfully copy and paste a summary of an issue. Fast and with a good enough level of accuracy.

Generally the AI summaries I see are more topical and accurate than the many other comments in the thread.

replies(2): >>44617626 #>>44617654 #
2. Velorivox ◴[] No.44617626[source]
Really!?

[0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png

replies(1): >>44618356 #
3. lysace ◴[] No.44617654[source]
They are mostly posturing.

I don't see any problem sharing a human-reviewed LLM output.

(I also figure that human review may not be that necessary in a few years.)

replies(1): >>44617870 #
4. mook ◴[] No.44617870[source]
But it's the human review that makes it not rude; not bothering to review means you're wasting the other person's time. If they wanted a chatbot response they could have went to the LLM directly.

It's like pointing to a lmgtfy link. That's _intentionally_ rude, in that it's normally used when the question isn't worth the thought. That's what pasting a chatbot response says.

replies(2): >>44617886 #>>44618219 #
5. lysace ◴[] No.44617886{3}[source]
Agreed.
6. cm2012 ◴[] No.44618219{3}[source]
This I agree with as well 100%.
7. cm2012 ◴[] No.44618356[source]
You shouldn't compare against perfection, but against reality. ChatGPT o3 has been proven to outperform even experts on knowledge tasks quite a bit.

In general it raises the mean accuracy and info of a given thread.

Its like self driving cars.