• nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    He didn’t state what his actual process was. People assume that just means firing out a query and no bothering to check it, he said he uses it to summarize sources to see if they are worth reading. I don’t think that’s unreasonable if he still reads them.

    Regarding using it to write scripts, I think if you use LLMs to generate something you are good at making and are picky and opinionated about, the review process very quickly makes you skeptical about the output.

    Before the response, IP rights and environmental effects of LLMs are completely valid and are a valid reason for opposing them. Don’t just assume someone’s using it out of laziness instead of in an attempt to scale up their own work.

    • zimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Papers have an abstract and summary sections SPECIFICALLY for this reason and usually aren’t more than a paragraph; there’s no excuse to use LLM.

      • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I read a decent number of papers. If you’re looking for something specific, and abstract isn’t enough. If you want to research something specific that’s not the core focus of the paper, you at least need to skim it.

        If Hank Greene is understaffed, using AI to prefilter papers isn’t a terrible use of the technology.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Addictive behavior often includes being incapable of accurately describing or confronting their usage habits.