I am so tired of every tech bro telling us how AI will change the world without giving us any concrete examples

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Can you explain how you use it? Are you using it to pull research or to organize your own findings?

I am using it to gather information on a topic ahead of an interview

How is it different than just googling the topic and browsing the top results?

It's much faster.

Also bear in mind it is not like the Internet is all primary sources that are accurate. As a researcher I question everything I read whether it be AI or a blog post or a government report.

[Anonymous]

OP is like David Letterman in 1995 talking about the Internet with Bill Gates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you are saying here is you're not on GitHub, Substack, LinkedIn, or any of the places where people talk about the specific things they're building. You don't go to meetups where people demo their tools. Your version of curiosity is "posting here and demanding people tell you."

NP. I notice you haven't answered the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Can you explain how you use it? Are you using it to pull research or to organize your own findings?

I am using it to gather information on a topic ahead of an interview

How is it different than just googling the topic and browsing the top results?

It's much faster.

Also bear in mind it is not like the Internet is all primary sources that are accurate. As a researcher I question everything I read whether it be AI or a blog post or a government report.

+1 Also I ask it to provide me with links and sources. That way when it gives me the info I’m able to quickly click on each source and read and review for myself. It’s like a curated google

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Yes, and don’t we all need something to organize all of the useless and incorrect information along with the useful and correct information? I see no pitfalls, here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Can you explain how you use it? Are you using it to pull research or to organize your own findings?

I am using it to gather information on a topic ahead of an interview

How is it different than just googling the topic and browsing the top results?

It's much faster.

Also bear in mind it is not like the Internet is all primary sources that are accurate. As a researcher I question everything I read whether it be AI or a blog post or a government report.

+1 Also I ask it to provide me with links and sources. That way when it gives me the info I’m able to quickly click on each source and read and review for myself. It’s like a curated google

Did you know that your specific search terms used to be like a curated google?

Seriously, WTF does that even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and we are being forced to use AI to provide feedback on student work. It is bad, the kids know and don't like it, and the writing is on the wall: it is only a matter of time before our roles degenerate into crowd control aides only. This will do so much damage to kids; quality of education has already been degraded by screens/tech. I expect there will be a generation sacrificed to the AI teaching experiment before it is generally understood that this will hurt and not help.

If it’s K to 8 I'm all for it. 9 years of FCPS and my kid got about 10 comments total on their writing before high school.

+1 I agree. I think we got < 10 comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

I'm guessing you missed the article about how it made up published research? There's an expert in Homer who said chatgpt cited articles and people who don't exist. A lawyer who used it to research caselaw got destroyed by a judge because it made things up.

From MIT:

For an example of how AI hallucinations can play out in the real world, consider the legal case of Mata v. Avianca. In this case, a New York attorney representing a client’s injury claim relied on ChatGPT to conduct his legal research. The federal judge overseeing the suit noted that the opinion contained internal citations and quotes that were nonexistent. Not only did the chatbot make them up, it even stipulated they were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).

Be really freaking careful there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Can you explain how you use it? Are you using it to pull research or to organize your own findings?

I am using it to gather information on a topic ahead of an interview

How is it different than just googling the topic and browsing the top results?

This is where social media's degradation of attention spans comes into play. Read all that stuff? Wade through a couple websites? But there's a summary!

It's laziness and lack of brain power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

I'm guessing you missed the article about how it made up published research? There's an expert in Homer who said chatgpt cited articles and people who don't exist. A lawyer who used it to research caselaw got destroyed by a judge because it made things up.

From MIT:

For an example of how AI hallucinations can play out in the real world, consider the legal case of Mata v. Avianca. In this case, a New York attorney representing a client’s injury claim relied on ChatGPT to conduct his legal research. The federal judge overseeing the suit noted that the opinion contained internal citations and quotes that were nonexistent. Not only did the chatbot make them up, it even stipulated they were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).

Be really freaking careful there.

I literally question everything I read. I don't take anything at face value. It sounds like you only want to use AI if you can get it to do your job without you doing any work. Right now, it does not have that capability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

Can you elaborate? AI draws upon various things from the internet right? As a researcher, wouldn’t best practice be to consult primary sources?

Of course it is. Everything needs to be verified. But when there is a ton of information out there AI can organize it.

Can you explain how you use it? Are you using it to pull research or to organize your own findings?

I am using it to gather information on a topic ahead of an interview

How is it different than just googling the topic and browsing the top results?

This is where social media's degradation of attention spans comes into play. Read all that stuff? Wade through a couple websites? But there's a summary!

It's laziness and lack of brain power.

You get that most websites are not rock solid sources either, right?

It's ok to use technology to be more productive. Obviously that doesn't make a person lazy, it makes them smart. You do have to recognize the limitations of the tech and act accordingly. Just like you don't take a nap while "driving" your Tesla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

I'm guessing you missed the article about how it made up published research? There's an expert in Homer who said chatgpt cited articles and people who don't exist. A lawyer who used it to research caselaw got destroyed by a judge because it made things up.

From MIT:

For an example of how AI hallucinations can play out in the real world, consider the legal case of Mata v. Avianca. In this case, a New York attorney representing a client’s injury claim relied on ChatGPT to conduct his legal research. The federal judge overseeing the suit noted that the opinion contained internal citations and quotes that were nonexistent. Not only did the chatbot make them up, it even stipulated they were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).

Be really freaking careful there.

I literally question everything I read. I don't take anything at face value. It sounds like you only want to use AI if you can get it to do your job without you doing any work. Right now, it does not have that capability.

Um. It's a giant leap from "be careful" to "YOU ONLY WANT IT TO DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!1" Chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

I'm guessing you missed the article about how it made up published research? There's an expert in Homer who said chatgpt cited articles and people who don't exist. A lawyer who used it to research caselaw got destroyed by a judge because it made things up.

From MIT:

For an example of how AI hallucinations can play out in the real world, consider the legal case of Mata v. Avianca. In this case, a New York attorney representing a client’s injury claim relied on ChatGPT to conduct his legal research. The federal judge overseeing the suit noted that the opinion contained internal citations and quotes that were nonexistent. Not only did the chatbot make them up, it even stipulated they were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).

Be really freaking careful there.

I literally question everything I read. I don't take anything at face value. It sounds like you only want to use AI if you can get it to do your job without you doing any work. Right now, it does not have that capability.

Um. It's a giant leap from "be careful" to "YOU ONLY WANT IT TO DO YOUR JOB!!!!!!1" Chill.

Why are you putting something in quotes (and all caps at that) that nobody else said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s been good at taking raw notes from meetings and events and turning them into readouts that can be sent around. This has made people more efficient because it’s a menial task; it certainly isn’t replacing most people’s core work at my company. I have to read a lot of documents and reports so it can make that quicker too. And it can produce decent first drafts of reports I have to write but I find they require a lot of editing.

I will say it’s been useful for some other things, like summarizing internal Teams meetings for those that missed them. But that’s an added value rather than work replacement.

This is what I've found too. But other that, not much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all should be using the paid versions. Game changer.

FOR WHAT.

+1 Just as OP points out, they never give examples. I think it's because they use it for stupid stuff like adjusting the tone of an email or doing some basic analysis that anyone with a brain and a modest attention span could do.

+2

I hesitate to write this because I don't want to insult people who use AI (but then, they have to problem insulting me, by constantly posting that if I get poor results from AI it must be because I didn't use it correctly because it's axiomatic that the AI works perfectly)... my impression is AI is good for two things:
1. Coding (not my field, but I'll accept the testimonials here)
2. People who have difficulty with tasks like writing emails and performance reviews or organizing their thoughts generally

-1
As a researcher it's so useful. A little bit too useful honestly.

I'm guessing you missed the article about how it made up published research? There's an expert in Homer who said chatgpt cited articles and people who don't exist. A lawyer who used it to research caselaw got destroyed by a judge because it made things up.

From MIT:

For an example of how AI hallucinations can play out in the real world, consider the legal case of Mata v. Avianca. In this case, a New York attorney representing a client’s injury claim relied on ChatGPT to conduct his legal research. The federal judge overseeing the suit noted that the opinion contained internal citations and quotes that were nonexistent. Not only did the chatbot make them up, it even stipulated they were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).

Be really freaking careful there.

I literally question everything I read. I don't take anything at face value. It sounds like you only want to use AI if you can get it to do your job without you doing any work. Right now, it does not have that capability.

You can question everything, but there's different standards of reliability. If I search for a legal case on LexisNexis, I have high confidence that it's a real case, the head notes correctly summarize key holdings, and the Shepards symbol indicates whether it's good law. I know it has been reviewed by humans and has a reputation for accuracy and reliability (ironically, the only thing that would give me less confidence would be if they incorporated more AI). Searching for the case in the actual reporter would be a colossal waste of time ( i used to have to do this for Law Review. Go to the real law library, pull the book and make photocopies of the pages to file as proof the case said what the author said!).

If I use AI to pull cases, I have no idea whether the cases are real, the holdings are accurate, and it's still good law, and definitely need to spend time looking them up on other sites, so this would be a waste of time when I can get highly accurate, reasonably fast results on Lexis.

If I were doing non legal research I'd search pub med or whatever and skim the executive summaries to find what I need, and at least I'd know it was actual published research. I could still question the bias of the author but at least I'd know it was real.