zlacker

> you'd still have to do 5% of the work

No, you still have to do 100% of the work.

>>mrheos+(OP)
You simply do not. You do the math yourself to calculate 2(n) for n in [1, 2, 3, 4] and get [2, 5, 6, 8]. You plug it into your (75% accurate) unreliable calculator and get [3, 4, 6, 8]. You now know that you only need to recheck the first two (50%) of the entries.

>>ToValu+rT
I resent becoming QA/QC for the machine instead of doing the same or better thinking myself.

>>throww+211
This is fair. I expect you would resent the tool even more if it was perfect and you couldn't even land a job in QA anymore. If that's the case, your resentment doesn't reflect on the usefulness of LLMs.