zlacker

>>isp+(OP)
A cautionary tale for why not to put unfiltered ChatGPT output directly to customers.

Nitter mirror: https://nitter.net/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121

Related - "New kind of resource consumption attack just dropped": https://twitter.com/loganb/status/1736449964006654329 | https://nitter.net/loganb/status/1736449964006654329

>>isp+1
The only correct user of generative ai is one that can evaluate the results. Which is why it’s not a tool for non subject area experts.

That’s the conclusion I’ve drawn anyway. So it’s a good tool for the customer service team not a replacement for it

>>pacifi+k7
I still think it's a great tool for when truthfulness and accuracy don't matter. It's not exactly creative, but it can spew out some pretty useful fiction for things like text adventures and other fictional filler text.

I'm personally using it because SEO bullshit has ruined search engines. AI can still sift through bullshit search results, for now. The key is assuming the AI lies and actually reading the page it links, because it'll make up facts and summaries even if they directly oppose the quoted source material.

I fear AI tools will soon befall the same faith as Google (where searching for an obscure term will land you a page of search results that's 75% malware and phishing links), but for now Bard and Bing Chat have their uses.

>>jeroen+v8
The problem is tech illiterate know-nothings I encounter daily in management (at a tech company no less) have been told or fooled into thinking these LLMs are some sort of knowledge engine. I even see it on HN when people suggest using a LLM in place of a search engine. How did we get to this point?

>>wildrh+09
It is basically 100x better at providing accurate and succinct responses to simple questions than a google search is nowadays. Trying to get it to explain things or provide facts about things is dubious, but so is a huge majority of the crap google feeds to you when you aren’t technically adept.