pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @LibertasBR 29 Jul \ parent \ on: AI will soon be able to audit all published research... science
I saw the post. Even though that’s the goal, the applications go beyond just being a compliance reviewer. Even these things should be reviewed during the journal’s editorial process and by human peers.
write
preview
30 sats \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 29 Jul
For sure, human reviewers are still a crucial part of the process.
Autonomous AI agents are doing more bad than good, from what I've seen.
reply
103 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibertasBR 29 Jul
Yes, and yet people keep feeding them and putting their faith in them.
Where before the most common thing to hear was: “Google it,” Now there’s this air of certainty: “Ask ChatGPT then.”
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 29 Jul
Yeah, I hate when in a chat discussion where some people are asking for advice, some other random person with no knowledge on the topic jumps in and says: "according to ChatGPT..." and states it like definite truth.
If I wanted to have ChatGPTs input, I'd have asked it myself. If I am asking fellow humans, it's because I believe that for this specific thing, I need a human with specialized knowledge.
reply