11–20 of 24 posts
This is a valuable read: https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_1/
I treat it like hiring a consultant. They do a lot of work, but I still review the output before making a decision or passing it on.
Sending something with errors to my boss or peers makes me look stupid. Saying it was caused by unrevised AI makes me look stupider.
Not at all
Part of the reason I like Perplexity is because of the embedded references, and I always, always, double check the sources and holler at the Perp AI when it is clearly confabulating or misinterpreting. Still gives me insights and is useful, but trust-but-verify isn't just about arms control ;)
I also don't trust LLMs, but I still find automations useful. Even with human-in-the-loop they save a bunch of time. Clicking "Approve & Send" is much quicker than manually writing out the email, and I just rewrite the 5% that contains hallucinations.
Spare the recipients from reading generated filler / slop?
I also don't trust LLMs, but I still find automations useful. Even with human-in-the-loop they save a bunch of time. Clicking "Approve & Send" is much quicker than manually writing out the email, and I just rewrite the 5% that contains hallucinations.
Why not just write the 5% that contains meaningful communication? Spare the recipients from reading generated filler / slop?
Yes, of course I review everything. I treat it like hiring a consultant. They do a lot of work, but I still review the output before making a decision or passing it on. Sending something with errors to my boss or peers makes me look stupid. Saying it was caused by unrevised AI makes me look stupider.
Ever? More like always. Keeping humans in the loop is the current best practice. If you truly need to automate something that cannot afford a human checkpoint, find a deterministic solution for it, not LLMs.