Post #2803795
2026-05-15 03:43 UTC
[Sorry for the double reply]
\*slow clap\*
I'm not *completely* opposed to people using large models as a writing aid, specially for technical stuff. However: if you're publishing a scientific paper, it's your job to check it twice, thrice, ~~tenice~~ ten times, to ensure all info there is accurate, factual, and well grounded. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be littering the commons with your rubbish.
That applies even to references. In fact, references are part of the process: knowledge isn't born ex bloody nihilo dammit, people should be able to check the references of your paper and find earlier literature about the subject.
Replies (1)
-
@brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2026-05-15 03:49
It's absolutely mad that LLM hallucinations are "socially accepted," and that the population seems to be kept ignorant of them. It'd be like not requiring a license to drive cars, and completely obscuring *anything* about how they work, locking steering behind a corporate subscription connection, and then calling running people over a "cost of advancement; the next car will be better, we promise!" *** ...I know *why.* Education would reduce engagement. Big Tech can't have that. But still. It's mad. These text models should be presented as primitive aids, like they were designed to be. Not freaking do-anything magic lamps.