This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Here's a neat little trick: You can ask Chatgpt to provide you with SOURCES. If you ask AI a question and take every answer it gives you at face value, that is an error on your part.
Yep. im always studying with chatgpt, but never use it as main source. it really helps in finding keywords or exact notes from the web (my lecture notes are soo incomplete lol)
I study very niche topics, why sift through articles when i can have the links i need in a few seconds? It'll find me some crazy good scientific papers too.
It's even funnier when you lookup OpenEvidence AI.
It looked medically so like if medicine shaped it must be the claimed cancery too. Humans often play a quick association run and give out wrong answers smh.
Literally anything new that you get an aI to create is a hallucination. Not necessarily wrong but you're forcing silicon to reason something unverified what do you expect.
What other possible definition did you mean other than the day to day use of AI when referring to “general use”? It’s still anti AI no matter how you look at it. Brick wall.
Fentanyl is good due to its medical usage, though. People have literally started refusing it during medical emergencies due to its association with street drugs, which directly parallels this view on cancer detecting ai.
I mean, I do make that argument with respect to fentanyl.
More to the point, though: It does have a lot to do with general LLM usage. That's how the technology is developed. It has to be well-understood before it can reliably serve medical needs.
Hallucinations in the context of some fictional writing aid or a shopping list aren't particularly destructive. As companies and researchers learn how to rectify these problems, the technology becomes more useful for critical roles like medicine or law.
Many critics don't realize that the desired end result comes with growing pains. They just expect us all to magically teleport to the destination, without all of the steps between. Zero long-term vision.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Here's a neat little trick: You can ask Chatgpt to provide you with SOURCES. If you ask AI a question and take every answer it gives you at face value, that is an error on your part.
Yep. im always studying with chatgpt, but never use it as main source. it really helps in finding keywords or exact notes from the web (my lecture notes are soo incomplete lol)
I've found my people. I put keywords in chatgpt and ask it to find papers on that subject. No ad, no clutter. It's amazing.
I study very niche topics, why sift through articles when i can have the links i need in a few seconds? It'll find me some crazy good scientific papers too.
It's even funnier when you lookup OpenEvidence AI.
It looked medically so like if medicine shaped it must be the claimed cancery too. Humans often play a quick association run and give out wrong answers smh.
[removed]
Pro-AI advocacy is allowed here.
Arguments against generative AI are beyond the scope of this subreddit, however.
It’s like saying ai righting tools are wrong all the time it’s very rare for them to be wrong if at all
Literally anything new that you get an aI to create is a hallucination. Not necessarily wrong but you're forcing silicon to reason something unverified what do you expect.
[removed]
whats even more pathetic is commenting on said sub, with false information and arbirtary definition of art. Honestly.... thats pathetic.
I'm not the biggest fan od AI art, but that is just a shitty take. Those are the types of people which will always contradict you.
What does this have to do with defending AI art?
this actively has nothing to do with general LLM usage and you all know it.
nobody argues ‘Uhm, but it’s used for medical purposes so it’s good actually’ for fentanyl.
And? This is still being Anti AI. Doesn’t matter if it’s for general use or for professional use.
not what i meant by ‘general use’ and you know it lmao
What other possible definition did you mean other than the day to day use of AI when referring to “general use”? It’s still anti AI no matter how you look at it. Brick wall.
Fentanyl is good due to its medical usage, though. People have literally started refusing it during medical emergencies due to its association with street drugs, which directly parallels this view on cancer detecting ai.
I mean, I do make that argument with respect to fentanyl.
More to the point, though: It does have a lot to do with general LLM usage. That's how the technology is developed. It has to be well-understood before it can reliably serve medical needs.
Hallucinations in the context of some fictional writing aid or a shopping list aren't particularly destructive. As companies and researchers learn how to rectify these problems, the technology becomes more useful for critical roles like medicine or law.
Many critics don't realize that the desired end result comes with growing pains. They just expect us all to magically teleport to the destination, without all of the steps between. Zero long-term vision.