| ▲ | imiric a day ago | |
Indeed. The narrative that this type of issue is entirely the responsibility of the user to fix is insulting, and blame deflection 101. It's not like these are new issues. They're the same ones we've experienced since the introduction of these tools. And yet the focus has always been to throw more data and compute at the problem, and optimize for fancy benchmarks, instead of addressing these fundamental problems. Worse still, whenever they're brought up users are blamed for "holding it wrong", or for misunderstanding how the tools work. I don't care. An "artificial intelligence" shouldn't be plagued by these issues. | ||
| ▲ | SauntSolaire a day ago | parent | next [-] | |
> It's not like these are new issues. Exactly, that's why not verifying the output is even less defensible now than it ever has been - especially for professional scientists who are responsible for the quality of their own work. | ||
| ▲ | Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Worse still, whenever they're brought up users are blamed for "holding it wrong", or for misunderstanding how the tools work. I don't care. An "artificial intelligence" shouldn't be plagued by these issues. My feelings exactly, but you’re articulating it better than I typically do ha | ||