Asklemmy

44127 readers

484 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Have you used so-called "AI" for actually productive work ? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With copilot included in Professional-grade Office 365 and some politician claiming that their government should use AI to be more efficient. I am curious on whether some of you did use "AI" to get some productive things done. Or if it's still mostly a toy for you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think I'm going to disagree with the accuracy statement.

Yes - AIs can be famously inaccurate. But so can web pages - even reputable ones. In fact, any single source of information is insufficient to be relied upon, if accuracy is important. And today, deliberate disinformation on the internet is massive - it's something we don't even know the scale of because the tools to check it may be compromised.

It takes a lot of cross-referencing to be certain of something, and most of us don't bother if the first answer from either method 'feels right'.

AI does get shown off when it's stupidly wrong, which is to be expected, but the world doesn't care when it's correct time and again. And each iteration gets better at self-checking facts.