If a human told you things that were correct 80% of the time but claimed, flat out, with absolute confidence, that they were correct 100% of the time, you would dislike them & never trust a word they say. All I'm really suggesting is for people to treat chatbots with that same distrust & antagonism.

No, where they're great is as a writing check. If an LLM summary of your work is accurate that indicates what you wrote doesn't really have much interesting information in it and maybe you should try harder."

From Dan Sugalski on Mastodon. (Apologies for end credit, size constraint dictate)

(3/3)

Not for *summarizing* text -- they're horrible for that. They're weighted statistical models and by their very nature they'll drop the least common or most unusual bits of things. Y'know, the parts of a message that are actually important.

(2/3)

If the government needs more than two months to act on emergency needs, how can we trust it to handle urgent but non-emergency needs, to say nothing of its pace on more mundane issues.
Is this any way to provide for the people? (Not just running a country, it's at all levels.) (2/2)