• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    ChatGPT gives you a bad summary full of hallucinations and, as a result, you choose not to read the text based on that summary.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 years ago

        But the claims of the text are often why you read it in the first place! If you have a hundred scientific papers you’re going to read the ones that make claims either supporting or contradicting your research.

        You might as well just skim the titles and guess.

          • self@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            2 years ago

            not reading the fucking sidebar and thinking this is high school debate club fallacy

              • self@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                2 years ago

                holy shit, imagine getting a second chance to not be a fucking debatelord and doubling down this hard

                off you fuck

                • blakestacey@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  People just out here acting like a fundamentally, inextricably unreliable and unethical technology has a “use case”

                  smdh

                  • self@awful.systems
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    fucking right! there’s this unearned assumption that just because the tech’s been invented, it must have worth. and, like, no? there’s so many dead ends in science and technology, and notoriously throwing money at something doesn’t change its fundamental nature

                    and now I’m pissed and trying to decide if it’s even worth explicitly adding “don’t be a debatelord asshole” to the TechTakes sidebar, cause it’s not like they’re gonna stop

              • froztbyte@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                this argument

                I agree, you’re quite right, and I thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            2 years ago

            Unless it doesn’t accurately represent the topic, which happens, and then a researcher chooses not to read the text based on the chatbot’s summary.

            Nirvana fallacy.

            All these chatbots do is guess. I’m just saying a researcher might as well cut out the hallucinating middleman.