| ▲ | analogpixel 6 hours ago |
| All I got out of this article is that he should have went home and dumped it into chatgpt just to see what happened; then if it did as good a job as him, he should start looking for other places he can add value that AI can't. |
|
| ▲ | analogpixel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The point of the comment was that models are improving a lot every release, so if your livelihood depends on something, you might want to check to see what the latest models are capable of before someone else (like your employer ) tells you. The other person in the gym was right, did you you just dump it in the latest model? |
|
| ▲ | byronic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| she did. Did you remember to read the article? |
| |
| ▲ | bachmeier 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From the phrasing of the sentence, with the incorrect gender and the generic nature of the comment, obviously not. | |
| ▲ | int3trap 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article does not say that. The author doesn't take the text the other person dumped into ChatGPT and evaluate its quality. That is what OP is referring to. | | |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The article clearly implies she has tried so previously. | | |
| ▲ | analogpixel 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | when someone says they have tried previously that makes me think once long ago when they first came out. If your employment could be replaced by this, I'd be testing all new models to see where they stand. Just because you don't want to use AI/LLM to translate, that won't stop someone else who will, and they will end up doing it cheaper and faster (maybe not better, but most people don't really care about quality too much anymore.) |
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
