You can take “justifiable” to mean whatever you feel it means in this context. e.g. Morally, artistically, environmentally, etc.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Except they can screw up at that role.

    There’s a lawsuit because DOGE asked ChatGPT to summarize projects DEI-ness, and for example it declared a grant for fixing air conditioning was a DEI initiative

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Indeed:

        ChatGPT determined that this was related to DEI, responding, “Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI.”

        • jtzl@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Lord. Yet another example of folks finding out the hard way that “AI” is marketing-speak. I get that people want to make this like LLMs are effectively like discovering how to make fire, but could we please not suspend judgment wholesale!?

    • Trilogy3452@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If you ask for quotes and explanations it would help, i.e. treat the LLM output as a smart index/table of contents. You’d be able to quickly verify claims

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        As long as you follow through to actually source the original, instead of assuming the quotes provided are intact. The point was in the case above, DOGE was doing no follow up, and most people who look to that as a ‘summary’ assistant aren’t wanting to dig deeper.

        Hell, even without AI lawmakers frequently got caught admitting they didn’t read the law they signed, they didn’t have time for that. Now with AI summaries as an excuse…

        • Trilogy3452@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          46 minutes ago

          That’s just general incompetence, lying with statistics for example has been around for a while

        • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s a tool, like everything else. It’s easy to google wrong info. You can get wrong info from an encyclopedia.

          You can even from a dictionary: One thing that slightly annoys me is the change in the spelling of “yeah” such that “yea” is a common alternate spelling - thanks to autocorrect. “Yea” was a word - it’s archaic these days. If you see someone say “Yay or nay” that was “yea or nay”. “Yea” is not the same meaning as “yes” or “yeah”, although it is somewhat similar.

          I remember someone quoting dictionary definitions to me to try and “prove” that “yea” meant the exact same as “yeah” or “yes”.

          They were wrong.

          But the point is: The tool is just a tool. AI is a tool.