We get a ton of untrustworthy information all the time and we know there is a chance of it being wrong and we weigh the consequences vs the extra effort it will take to verify

I think we have an easier job determining right away if humans are lying about something, and humans generally own up to being unsure about things. On the other hand, AI seems to be designed with an intention to be infallible, as it doesn’t even give an estimate as to how sure it is that it’s information is correct.

If a human in an organisation lies/says incorrect things a lot, they get fired.

If im about to stake my career on a fact im not going to rely on chatGPT but if I need to see some popular UI frameworks then chatGPT is fine. If its wrong thats fine there is nothing riding on it I just move on and check the next one.

So it sounds like AI is only really useful for your line wider area of work, that being anything programming focused, and therefore you’re thinking of a very specific type of information to get fetched - templates to build off of. I hope you can see why it was bad to generalise in your initial response; someone working with historical or political facts, a structural engineer working on bridges, or a teacher, can’t rely on GPT to get them the info they work with.

or finding sources for info that would take a LOT longer otherwise.

Maybe. It adds to the list of sources you have to check from, but i’ve found i still have to manually check to see if it’s actually on topic rqther than only tangentially related to what I’m writing about. But that’s fair enough, because otherwise it’d be like cheating, having whole essays written for you.

Its great for getting detailed references on code

I know it’s perhaps unreasonable to ask, but if you can share examples/anecdotes of this I’d like to see. To understand better how people are utilising LLMs

Honestly if you think it’s a good feature I challenge you to make a few short youtube tutorials demonstrating how to use it’s helpful features. This will help to spread awareness, and helps convince people with evidence.

I have heard a lot of (what i think is) hot air from the microsoft head AI guy about how much it streamlines professional life and I would love if that was actually true, but I can’t help feeling i would already know about these wondrous features if that was in fact the case. Because people would be gushing about them.

We already have proof that this is a popular feature for users since its been integrated in every mobile phone for the past 10 years

That seems like a good argument. People went crazy over siri and such.

LLMs are by far the best way to retrieve information(that doesnt need to be correct).

I’m not sure when people ever need to retrieve information thet doesn’t need to be correct, in a professional context. But thanks for being honest i guess.

And I can’t tell if its a historical norm or if we’ve essentially seen a huge increase in the number of lonely pets. I get the feeling that having a family pet is part of the american ‘white picket fence’ package, but that was conceived in a time when married women were usually SAHM - in which case dogs at home are constantly kept company.

I’ve often said to people that pets should be shared with neighbours, so they can stay as active as poasible and not be too much of a time drain on one family (E.G some dogs need to walk twice a day, or run once a day) but people don’t generally seem interested in a pet’s happiness.

I agree - I think it’s mean that people keep dogs, for instance, when they’re leaving them unattended for most of the day. Personally I wouldn’t get a dog unless I had family, a house and a garden for it. Cats have a bit more leeway but I would still want them to have a nice neighbourhood or gardens to explore.

Might have toothpaste in, though. (Yes this is where I draw the line)