On 2024-01-28 14:06, Carles Pina i Estany via GLLUG wrote: > I am normally not active on this forum, but read most of the messages > and do have some knowledge in linux. For me to state that a policy from > another site, just because it makes sense, should also retrospectively > appy here just because you think it makes sense, is a wrong assumption. > If you think that policy should apply here, lets discuss and agree to that. > Not just retrospectively apply it to a person, that for all intents and > purposes is trying to help Hendrik is not conductive to free and open > discussions. > For me the usage of LLMs, if done correctly, is a great tool. As any tool it > has its limitation, the famous hallucinations to name but one.
I managed development of an AI project between 1995 and 2000. In my role as "speaker to suits" I had to explain it to people` with zero understanding of IT. The more I came to understand it the less I liked it. For our project it was fine because our requirement was for credibility and not accuracy. We are currently at the "unrealistic expectations" phase of the hype-cycle and blind acceptance is rife.. The problem is that it generates plausible answers and not necessarily correct ones. In situations where correctness is important the error-rate needs to be watched. If users are accustomed to blindly accepting whatever the computer says 99.99% right might be worse than 90%. My advice is that it's often a mistake to use LLM for any job that you can't do better yourself. > Let's try to be nice to eachother, especially when somebody is doing > his/her/its best to help Jan Indeed. Although we don't necessarily have to agree. I would prefer that LLM generated material should always be flagged as such. I'm unsure whether I should go further and consider discussions in which LLM-generated arguments have been presented as 'tainted.' -- Bernard Peek [email protected] -- GLLUG mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
