Post #4479964
2026-08-10 03:28 UTC
@darkuncle@infosec.exchange
I'm concerned they always do, to a greater or lesser extent. Research is a skill as well.
But if you use the AI to research - how do you check the answers. More research? Experimentally? I suggest using AI for research is a lot like using it for coding; the usefulness is proportional to how much you already know.
Code is good; there are purely mechanical non-AI methods to confirm validity. But research? We've seen the AI give bad legal advice, we've seen it give bad medical advice. How do you confirm validity?
I'd also add that the people *most likely* to use an AI for research, as opposed to going to original sources, are the least likely to recognize bullshit.
Replies (1)
-
@darkuncle@infosec.exchange 2026-08-10 06:24
@tbortels@infosec.exchange in my case, the AI does the same searches I would do, summarizes the findings, and cites sources in a tiny fraction of the time it would take me. It’s particularly good at figuring out what that thing is I’m thinking of when I can’t remember enough about it to even do a proper search.