(distantprovince.by)

321 points distantprovince | 1 comments | 19 Jul 25 16:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.23s | source

Show context

jmugan ◴[19 Jul 25 18:00 UTC] No.44617776[source]▶

I love the post but disagree with the first example. "I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said: <...>". That seems totally fine to me. The sender put work into the prompt and the user is free to read the AI output if they choose.

replies(1): >>44617948 #

guywithahat ◴[19 Jul 25 18:17 UTC] No.44617948[source]▶

>>44617776 #

I think in any real conversation, you're treating AI as this authority figure to end the conversation, despite the fact it could easily be wrong. I would extract the logic out and defend the logic on your own feet to be less rude.

replies(2): >>44618102 #>>44619505 #

1. justaj ◴[19 Jul 25 21:18 UTC] No.44619505[source]▶

>>44617948 #

And what if you let a human expert fact-check the output of an LLM? Provided you're transparent about the output (and its preceding prompt(s)) ?

Because I'd much rather ask an LLM about a topic I don't know much about and let a human expert verify its contents than waste the time of a human expert in explaining the concept to me.

Once it's verified, I add it to my own documentation library so that I can refer to it later on.

↑

It's rude to show AI output to people