My worry is that if people can't express clearly, in writing, what it is they want to say then an LLM won't help them much. I've seen LLMs get the wrong end of the stick over and over and produce a huge chunk of text that's certainly readable and says something. It's just not clear that the something is the thing the person originally really wanted to say.

If you can write clearly enough to express your idea to an LLM, then perhaps you should just send that to the person you're writing to.

▲

hi_im_greg_h 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This. If you cant communicate your ideas properly to a human who has infinitely more awareness of the scenario/business/world/etc.

How are you going to prompt effectively and not allow the LLM to infer a bunch of nonsense?

	▲	mtabini 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You are not. I am in agreement with you :-) My thought is that perhaps there is some utility to using AI to help in routine scenarios, such as for example when a language barrier prevents someone from explaining themselves well, or when they are struggling to find the right words to express themselves. Primarily, I was trying to stay away from an absolutist view of the problem to see if there are circumstances in which AI can be useful even considering all its shortcomings. There seems to be a lot of “all or nothing” perspective on its use right now, and I was simply wondering whether it might be a better idea to take a more pragmatic approach. We do this with a lot of tech in real life: You don't need to be an MD to decide to take an aspirin, or an F1 driver to take the car to the grocery store (well, maybe in some cities, but that's beside the point). The problem is not with using technology, but with abandoning your judgment to it.